
Steve Wozniak on Samsung patent verdict: ‘I hate it and I don’t agree with it’ - talhof8
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/09/13/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-samsung-patent-verdict-i-hate-i-dont-agree-it/?utm_campaign=social%20media&utm_medium=Spreadus&awesm=tnw.to_o4EZ&utm_source=Twitter
======
creamyhorror
This will just get him disavowed as a cofounder of Apple by the hardcore
supporters. Eventually no one will remember he helped start Apple and everyone
will think Jobs was the only one. (edit: true enough that they already see him
as the black sheep, the embarrassing uncle everyone tries to ignore)

No one cares what the "naive, idealistic" engineer clueless about business
thinks. That's the battle we're fighting - to fix patents, we have to tell
people how it's not mere idealism or ideology, but how real businesses can get
squeezed out by patent trolls or assholes if software patents don't get
reformed soon.

On the bright side, I'm noticing more friends getting Androids, even around
this time when the iPhone 5 is being launched. Only the core Apple supporters
are going straight for the iPhone. The tide may be turning and Apple losing a
bit of its shine, at least in my circles.

~~~
NaturalDoc
Well said. I think it's sad that the mind behind Apple technology is getting
forgotten while the marketer gets all the glory. I, too, hope Woz is right and
the case gets overturned on appeal.

I am also noticing the shift to Android in my circles. This could be a good
thing.

~~~
microtherion
I don't think Woz is in danger of getting forgotten anytime soon. In fact,
given that the last technical contribution he made to Apple was, as far as I
recall, about 30 years ago, it seems to me that is getting rather generous
credit for Apple's success.

~~~
qq66
Woz:iPhone 5::George Washington:Apollo 11?

------
BenoitEssiambre
Wise man. The way I see it, Apple had a case regarding "trade dress". Some
Samsung devices, for example the Galaxy Tab 10.1, do look too much like Apple
products. However, the rest of the patents were ridiculous. If the bar for
patent validity is going to be this low, most software developers will not be
able to do a day's work without accidentally infringing on something. Every
piece of software I've seen being built most certainly uses methods that are
described somewhere in patents, especially if it is leading edge in terms of
communicating, collecting, syncing or displaying information through the web
or mobile devices. If court decisions keep going this way, it is going to
become impossible to code legally without the costly burden of acquiring a
patent war chest and a team of layers to defend your organisation. We might as
well shut down the industry to newcomers.

~~~
ghshephard
I'm interested in why you thought the bar was set low? From all my reading, it
sounded like Samsung had to go out of their way to emulate the Apple
processes, it wasn't something they would have accidentally done.

I'm not saying I agree with the verdict, but a lot of people misrepresent this
case as, "Apple has a patent on pinch-to-zoom" (not true), and Samsung was
sued for building a rectangle-with-glass (not true) - instead of the actual,
more complicated case.

In particular, which patent did you think was "ridiculous?"

~~~
cma
Pinch-to-zoom. Just because it is on a capacitive touch screen instead of some
other type of touch screen, doesn't really change the implementation of it,
and isn't worth patentability.

It is like someone coming on the scene and seeing that windowed GUIs weren't
patented, deciding that now if I plug my VGA cord into an LCD instead of a CRT
I have suddenly invented a new device and can get all the old innovations
protected as long as they appear on a "computing device with LCD display".

------
ericdykstra
I hope he's right that this gets reversed.

Apple makes a lot of best-in-class products (and I know some people that think
everything they make is best-in-class).

Do they think they need to do this kind of litigation to keep making products
people will buy? Are they trying to discredit Samsung as copycats? Or is it
just a case of "if it costs us $100m to pursue 10 lawsuits with a 5% chance of
any one of them getting us a $1b reward, it's a positive business move" sort
of thing?

~~~
ForrestN
For the dozenth time: this is not some radical choice Apple made. Apple is, as
a public company, responsible to act in its own interest within the current
economic system. The system is screwed up, but that doesn't mean that any
single company has a responsibility to unilaterally disarm.

~~~
ajross
Aggressive product-killing patent suits are not the norm, nor are they part of
"the system" or "the game" as it's traditionally been practiced. Tech patents
have been used to drive revenue: invent stuff, file patents, find infringers,
negotiate for a royalty, sue if you can't come to agreement and eventually
settle for whatever royalty you end up with.

Apple isn't the only bad actor in the mobile space right now. And other
companies (c.f. Rambus) have been much worse in the past. But it's just not
correct to argue that they were "forced" to act this way by their obligations
to their shareholders. Don't make excuses.

~~~
Steko
And what if the other side doesn't want to settle?

Isn't the threat of injunction a large part of what drives infringers to
settle on a royalty or stop infringement?

~~~
ajross
The reporting as it stands is that Apple's demands (something like $30/unit I
think?) weren't something that could be meaningfully "negotiated". Obviously
there's complexity here, but the same logic goes the other way: if Samsung
felt they could get a significant discount on that $1B award via negotiation,
surely they would have cut that deal, no?

~~~
Steko
From what was presented at trial the $30/unit was the first offer and
basically Samsung didn't counter-propose anything.

It could very well be that Apple was inflexible on the $30 figure but to me a
starting offer of $30/unit implies a settlement somewhere at or below
$20/unit. Also note that the Apple offer included significant discounts that
could wittle the per unit cost down by 20%/40%/60% for various things (or up
to 100% if they also used Windows Phone instead of Android).

A settlement at $15 a unit with a 40%-60% discount would only be $6-$9 a unit.
Considering Samsung pays Microsoft $5-$10 a unit this doesn't seem all that
crazy.

------
robomartin
I am not taking sides. Don't have all the data. I'll just say that there's a
huge difference between "Research & Development" and only "Development". The
first is far more time consuming, risky and expensive. The second is a clear
and guided roadmap that you simply follow to completion.

I used to be an idealist. I bought the whole idea of "just build a better
product" without question. And so I did. Many years ago I embarked in the
development of electronic products for a specific industry while trenching new
territory and bringing new ideas to the user base. I opted not to file for
patents because, well, they were expensive and I was going to just beat them
with a better product. Or so I thought.

The first product took about a year and a half in R&D. Lots of work. Lots of
problems to solve. Lots to learn. It finally got out and we did really good
business right out of the gate. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.
Eight months later competitors came out with devices offering about 60% of
what we were doing at half the price.

It nearly killed the business. A six month month run with a hardware product
isn't enough to recoup your R&D. Our competitors had the advantage of only
having to do the "D" part because they copied and stole as much as they could.
Never mind the fact that they did not have to trench new territory and
actually test to see if there was a market there.

The lessons I learned during this period were invaluable (and very painful).
Patents do have reason to exist and should not be ignored. People will cheat
and steal in business the first chance they get. It takes a special kind of
person to honor an agreement without the threat of serious financial harm
through litigation if violated. People will violate NDA's and use them to get
your ideas and insight under all kinds of pretenses.

Business is war. I was an idealist. An idiot. Live and learn.

I don't know about the Apple vs. Samsung issue. Frankly, I don't have the time
to dive into the details. Even if it did, it would be a huge waste of my time
as I have nothing to gain from such an exercise. Not taking sides, here's
hoping that the courts get it right.

~~~
ajross
OK, the problem with your argument is this bit: " _Eight months later
competitors came out with devices offering about 60% of what we were doing at
half the price. It nearly killed the business_ "

If the HTC G1 "nearly killed" the iPhone 3G, then you might have an argument.
Though it would depend in sensitive ways on things like whether or not Apple
had made back its R&D costs over the year of Insanely Great iPhone sales. (The
fact that that phone wasn't made by Samsung seems kinda important too).

Needless to say, Apple made out sorta OK under the Google/HTC onslaught of
'08/90. So why cite something like this as a related anecdote when it clearly
doesn't apply? The kind of damages you posit don't exist, so why sue to recoup
them?

~~~
Steko
"If the HTC G1 "nearly killed" the iPhone 3G, then you might have an
argument."

He's not really arguing that and admits ignorance of Apple vs whoever. He's
arguing for the legitimacy of the patent system itself.

Moreover why would his anecdote of 8 months suddenly become a hard and fast
rule that can be applied to all other industries after which all bets are off?

------
thechut
I've said it before and I will say it again. Apple needs to compete on, and
thus focus on the quality of their products. Not sue everyone else into the
ground because they feel threatened. Apple will just keep squeezing out
incremental changes to their devices and suing everyone else until they are
the only ones left standing.

Maybe they should let Woz run the company, he seems to be the last innovator
left.

~~~
Steko
In what world does Apple not focus on the quality of their products?

Maybe they're the biggest public company in the world because Woz has never
been in charge?

~~~
cooldeal
It's not about the quality per se but I think their problem right now is that
users' choice is overwhelming them and the one-size-fits-all approach of the
iPhone has diminishing returns after a point. The variety, choice of screen
sizes and price ranges of the competition is only getting better by the day.

A new iPhone is released only once a year, so it better be very good with a
lot of new technologies, features, new designs etc. for sales to last all
through the next year. iPhone 4S sales started lagging in the 3Q itself this
year, compared to the 4th quarter for the iPhone 4. This is because people
start waiting for the next version or switch to the competition because they
have better specced devices with more features. I think Samsung timed their
Galaxy S3 launch perfectly to coincide with the iPhone 4S getting old enough
to beat, and they beat it in monthly sales for the first time, which is a
noteworthy thing in itself.

The whole situation is reminding me of the PC wars in the 80s, where Apple had
a seemingly unassailable innovation lead, and then squandered it away by
offering limited choice and higher prices, while Microsoft very smartly
licensed DOS to Compaq and others like Dell and HP, and the rest is history.
Apple's marketshare is now 17% vs. Android's 67% which is about 4 times more.
No wonder Apple is going crazy with the patent war against Android. That's
probably their only weapon against the equivalent of the hordes of the 'beige
boxes'.

~~~
Steko
I think Apple is aware that they only make one phone and the trade offs that
result.

iPhone Q3 sales lagged more than the year before because global rollout is
faster and in 2011 they had the midyear CDMA and white iphone launches to buoy
Q3.

The Galaxy S3 may have outsold the 4S some months and some devices surely will
in the future but the claim that it did so in July/August was not supported by
much data.

------
greghinch
I agree with the sentiment, admire respect the man for his contibutions to
where technology is, but I really don't understand why Woz's opionion is
solicited for every step that Apple of any time in the past 10 years has made.
Even at the gestation of the company, his idea of how they should proceed was
completely at odds with Jobs' (the latter actually wanted to turn a profit,
among other things). I would call it safe to say modern Apple is all but
devoid of Woz's influence

------
motoford
I can't believe these guys just called the Woz "infamous".

~~~
JimmaDaRustla
Does infamous not mean "evil" or "bad reputation"? How come people keep using
it as if its a good thing?

~~~
potatolicious
Infamous does indeed refer to the bad kind of fame - this is either a simple
brain fart, or possibly the writer just doesn't have a very sound grasp of the
language.

------
harshpotatoes
It's interesting that camera quality is so important for people, yet I find it
difficult to find information on image quality beyond how many megapixels the
sesnor has. The least they could do is tell me the sensor size/aperture size
too.

You really have to search the specialized review sites to find good
comparisons on image quality.

~~~
scw916
Not sure exactly what this references, but Apple actually gives fairly
specific information on all of their iDevices cameras—on the Apple product
page it specifically states 5 lens elements and an aperture of 2.4 for the
iPhone 5. And 4 lens element and an aperture of 2.8 for the iPhone 4.

------
mycodebreaks
Turn-by-Turn navigation came on Android way earlier than it came with iPhone 5
yesterday.

How fair it is for Apple complain about stealing ideas?

~~~
rimantas
Are you trying to say, that Apple was not aware about the thing called turn-
by-turn navigation before Android?

    
    
      > How fair it is for Apple complain about stealing ideas?
    

How about spending some time and finding out what the trial was really about?

~~~
SquareWheel

        "Are you trying to say, that Apple was not aware about the thing called turn-by-turn navigation before Android?"
    

Are you trying to say that Google was not aware of universal search?

<http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604>

~~~
fpgeek
Well, to be fair, the filing date on that patent is Dec 1, 2004.

Absent genuine industrial espionage, it would have been rather hard for the
Google Desktop team to have been aware of it in October 2004:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Desktop>

Or are you saying Google should have checked for new patents (and patent
applications - this wasn't issued until December 2011) before re-implementing
something they'd already done on the desktop on an Android phone?

------
megaman821
Apple should have won a copyright case against Samsung clearly copying too
much of the overall iPhone design. Instead Apple won a patent case which sucks
for everyone, not just Samsung. A litigious Apple could use this win against
other Android (and smart-phone in general) manufactures.

~~~
camiller
Design falls under Design Patent/trademark (Trade Dress) not copyright.

~~~
megaman821
Obviously they allow and people have patented things that are also
copyrightable. I just don't think that they should allow patents for many of
those things.

It feels like a painter suing another artist not for copying his painting but
for using patented brush strokes to create it.

------
css771
Samsung may have copied the shapes and a few gestures like slide to unlock
with the original galaxy s. But anyone who claims that it gave them a market
advantage is being disingenuous.

Woz has always been rational about stuff and what he says. I hope the verdict
gets overturned.

------
swang720
This is lazy journalism.

Will people stop posting what Steve Wozniak thinks about everything? Just
because he's Steve Wozniak doesn't make him a foremost expert on everything
related to technology. Does this quote add any insight or value at all?

 _“I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that
innovative. I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and
everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s
technologies.”_

~~~
noinput
Actually it does. The man is not claiming to be an expert on technology,
however he did help co-create one of the most successful and profitable
companies in history. You have an opinion, why shouldn't he?

~~~
morsch
I don't think that's the only reason he's quoted often. I think the fact that
Woz continues to have very sensible opinions on a lot of things has a lot to
with.

------
npguy
Patents are living proof that ideas are overrated.

------
headShrinker
We know Woz is an 'outside looking in' type person. His remarks remind me of
all the people who are really upset with Apple for pursuing this lawsuit.
People seem to have this conception that Apple saw an opportunity to sue the
pants of a harmless company so it did. This is not the case at all. The two
corporations were in meetings with lawyers for a year trying to iron out a
deal. The deals fell through and they went to court.

The truth is everyone has been and is suing Apple, all the time.
[http://c4sif.org/2012/04/web-of-tech-patent-lawsuits-
infogra...](http://c4sif.org/2012/04/web-of-tech-patent-lawsuits-infographic/)
This graphic is now 9 month old. Truth is Apple is the most sued company in
tech! I just don't get this 'down with Apple' mentality. It's completely
irrational.

When Apple entered the phone telecom industry, it turned telecoms on their
head. Apple started to take control from these awful companies (see my article
on t-mobile: [http://news.nucleusdevelopment.com/2012/09/11/t-mobile-
infla...](http://news.nucleusdevelopment.com/2012/09/11/t-mobile-inflated-my-
bill-by-242-and-thought-i-wouldnt-notice/)) and give it to consumers. Remember
verizon didn't want any part of the iPhone because 'it gave the consumer too
much control'?

Google and Samsung have been helping the telecoms regain control, allowing
crapware and bloatware to go right back on the phones. That is one of the very
things that Apple fought so hard to keep off their phones, and one of the main
reasons Verizon didn't initially want Apple as a vendor. Not to mention, The
spyware that gets installed with out our knowledge, ie: Carrier IQ.
Controlling the software OS on the phones (ei: why it takes so long to get a
new version of Android on your existing phone).

~~~
fpgeek
There are all sorts of things I disagree with in this comment, but I want to
highlight just one:

iPhones (like many Android phones and Blackberries and ...) had Carrier IQ
software installed on them. Google-controlled Nexus phones did not.

Moreover, the only reason anyone outside of Carrier IQ, operators, smartphone
manufacturers, etc knows anything at all about Carrier IQ is that some people
discovered it while trying to reverse-engineer an Android phone.

You may think Apple is a white knight protecting you from the carriers. The
truth, as always, is much more complicated.

------
the_expert
So how would things have turned out if we dropped all the software patent
claims and Apple could only sue on trade dress?

Apple is a hardware company. A hardware enclosures design company, really;
they outsource most everything to do with producingthe hardware. For a company
like Apple, trade dress claims make sense. Software patents seem a little
fishy.

(Even for software companies software patents are a bit fishy. That's why
they've traditionally relied on copyright. And if I'm not mistaken that's why
the USPTO is soon going to be issuing new rules and a new system to deal with
software/business method patents since they cause so much concern.)

------
JimmaDaRustla
I love the head on that man's shoulders.

------
kno
Why use expression like "The infamous engineer"? what does it mean? some
writers just go overboard sometimes.

------
Empro
I feel like the craziness is only just beginning.

~~~
roc
It has long since begun.

It is beyond me, why everyone chooses to ignore Nokia's taking a chunk out of
Apple and Microsoft taking a chunk out of HTC, Samsung and Barnes & Nobles.

Apple's case isn't anything new.

~~~
bornhuetter
Many tech companies have used patents in the past to get royalties from each
other. Some have been more aggressive than others.

What is new about the Apple case is that they appear to be using patents to
completely block competitors from the market, and making a huge amount of
noise about how other companies are "blatantly copying" things like slide-to-
unlock.

Microsoft have been extracting money from Android manufacturers for a while
now, but the public don't know and don't care. If Microsoft were to go around
making noise about Android being copy-cats and stealing their ideas, people
would be even more angry with them than they are with Apple (being Microsoft).

The argument that often goes around HN that "Nokia started it" completely
misses the point of what Apple are doing.

~~~
roc
Watch more patent litigation. The suits are always just proxies for the
licensing negotiation. Even seeking to get products blocked from market is
just hardball.

Despite the massive judgment in the Samsung/Apple case, it will likely all
boil down to licensing agreements.

------
sigzero
So what? Really. His opinion isn't any more or any less valuable that anybody
else.

------
barista
I respect the guy but is he influential enough that it matters what he thinks?

~~~
mladenkovacevic
I can't tell if this is a serious question. I'd imagine it matters to a great
deal of people what he thinks.

~~~
xtdx
Did any of those people disagree with him before? Has he changed anyone's
opinion? If he had said the opposite, that the verdict was correct, would
anyone here say "hmmm, he's given me a lot to think about."? Or would they
just say, "it's so sad to see a legend lose touch."?

