Well the consumer most benefits, if companies are continuously innovative, not copying each other and selling for cheaper. This article missed the point. Why doesn't Samsung actually make something better than the iPhone. Not some cheap ripoff.
I have both an iPhone 4S and a Galaxy S3 and the 4S has been relegated to app testing duty because the S3 is a better phone in almost every respect. It doesn't have quite the same level of polish that the iPhone does but it more than makes up for it with a richer, more flexible feature set and a much bigger and more usable screen.
I don't think anybody that's spent any length of time actually using a recent Samsung Android phone can argue in good faith that it's nothing more than a copy. If Apple succeeds in keeping products like this off the market it will be to the consumer's detriment.
Happy to hear that - I've bought an LG O2X with 512mb RAM (because it was half the price (Brazil) of the Samsung S2) and I was/am completely disappointed with the quality of experience (with a hacked ICS that gets slower and slower in a few days, another day I counted 30 seconds to open the Twitter app) and support LG gave (0, no official ICS and the phone is already dated).
The fascinating thing about Android is that the same model seems to produce the best devices and also absolute trash. I think this is just the price you pay for diversity but I also thing diversity will win out in the long run in this market. Apple's one-size-fits all model is just too limited.
Those companies that are continuously innovative have nothing to fear from copycats... because they are always one step ahead of the copycats. Companies which want to prevent everyone from "copying" (going as far as saying that you cannot apply to computers the minimalist style that they didn't even invent[1]) do so because they don't want to innovate -- they want to live large off their past achievements.
>> Not some cheap ripoff.
A cheap ripoff is not even close competition to a well executed product.
The innovator is also losing money here. What happens when innovator dies because of loses and we only have copycat left? You have people using Windows XP till 2012 (and that is despite innovator coming back to industry).
I cannot find any word other than "bullocks" to describe your argument. If you spent billions of dollars in R&D to come up with an innovative and revolutionary product and sold millions of it, and six months later someone produced imitations of it and sold millions as well, you would be pissed regardless of how many steps ahead you were. Reason is simple: they would be free-riding on your hard work.
an innovative step based on an existing long line of 20 years of mobile devices from many various different companies
> six months later
3 years & $100b in the bank later
> someone produced imitations
someone produced high quality competing products with innovations of their own that outclass your own in many respects
> you would be pissed
you would launch thermonuclear war based on abuse of patent system to attempt to destroy all competition in the market place
> Reason is simple: they would be free-riding on your hard work
Reason is simple: you refuse to compete on price, features, form factor or all kinds of other things consumers care about and are seeing dramatic gains in market share from your competitors who do offer these things
Are you a salesman for Apple? Cut out the junk words, seriously. There's nothing wrong in defending a product/company you like, but just don't push it too far.
It's a troll piece from the EFF and has been responded to on both sides in a similar fashion. Leave this nonsense for the Reddit boards. It's about time we all stopped being so damned idealogical about computing and computers, phones and tablets and actually spend the wasted cycles arguing about it to produce great things. All of it is just pissing in the wind.
The iPhone was revolutionary in execution, not concept. Every individual component (touchscreen, installable apps, browser etc etc.) of the iPhone was already on the market when the iPhone launched, just not gathered together in the same device and executed anywhere near as well as what Apple did.
This is simply not true. This is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc rationalization that works with people who see that almost all the smartphones out there have copied the iphone and so they believe that they must have existed contempraneously with the iphone.
Or put another way, you might as well have said "There was nothing new about the iPhone, everything important about it existed in the Motorola Razr-- it made calls, worked on GSM, had a screen, installable apps and would let you browse the web."
Or, "Marconi and Bell are the ones who invented the iPhone! And they did it decades before Apple came out with their shiny toy which people only buy because its pretty and marketed really expensively."
Being opinions these statements are more or less true, but they make the same error yours does.
Just because the landline phone pre-existed cellphones doesn't mean that cellphones are not innovative. A cellphone isn't just an execution of a landline phone.
At the same time, just because rudimentary touch screens existed (like Jeff Han's which used cameras) does not mean there was nothing new in the iPhones' touch screen (or do you believe there is a camera sitting about a foot behind your iphones screen taking pictures of your fingers?)
If you recognize that Jeff Han's camera based touch interface is obviously not the one used in the iPhone, then you must recognize that the iPhone contains unique (at the time, before it was copied) innovations.
You do realize that there where a number of touchscreen phones before the iPhone showed up right? Non of them (obviously) using a camera. A company I used to work for was developing software targeting phones driven entirely by touch back in 2000-2001 (the phones never caught on however and the project was never completed)
But back to the point. Yes the iPhone as a package was unique at the time. Certainly the touchscreen was much better than anything I'd seen up that point, and all the apps kicked the respective asses of what had come before. They where also the first company that managed to make a smartphone that was good enough that people actually wanted to own one. That I suppose could be considered revolutionary.
What specific innovations are you thinking about when you're talking about 'unique' innovations?
>Go look at devices before & after the iPhone was announced.
Check out 'LG Prada' my friend, it was iPhone minus the heavy marketing, which your friends at Apple had 'inspired' from. I still think it wasn't revolutionary. But I doubt if I suddenly become a moron, because some random uncivilized guy calls me so, just because I don't agree with him.
The LG Prada was nothing like the iPhone, and using it, simply because it had a form of "touch" interface, to try and defend your point is simply false.
None of the key iPhone technologies were present on the LG Prada. It was single touch, it did not resolve touches into single pixels like the iPhone does, it thus had very large buttons. It had no stack oriented UI, no tab or navigation based UI, no scrolling lists. No two fingers, and really to call what it had a "UI" is not quite correct at all. It wasn't even a smart phone, it was a feature phone with a gimmick. There were no apps, except for the built in features that make up all feature phones.
In short, none of the innovations of the iPhone were even in it, and it didn't ship until After the iPhone.
It was announced before the iPhone shipped in part to try and steal some of Apple's thunder but it doesn't even compete in the same category as the iPhone. So, bringing it up is, quite simply, dishonest.
It really is quite astounding the level of self deception and rationalization that Apple haters have to employ to pretend like Android and all these multi-touch smart phones that came after the iPhone, are not copying the iPhone simply because someone had a device with a screen you could touch prior to 2007.
But when you state such things in public, you step beyond self deception and into the arena of simple deception.
Further, the fact that the LG Prada example has been brought up ad infinitum for the past 5 years from people such as yourself, and that you still bring it up now, shows that the actual facts of reality are not relevant to you.
Your only point is to defend your ideology. And to do that, you are, quite simply, lying.
Touch is not what Apple invented. There were touch screens going back in the past. Jeff Han made one using Cameras. That's not prior art for the iPhone. Neither is the movie 2001: A space odessy, or any of the other long refuted nonsensical claims one finds android fanatics making.
Consequently, I am forced to reach the conclusion that you recognize that Android is a blatent ripoff of the iPhone, and you simply don't care. You either hate Apple or Love google, or you've attached to some anti-IP ideology, and that is more compelling to you than logic and reason, and the simple facts of history.
I know that this site is full of people who share your ideology and you will shout down and vote down anyone who disagrees, while calling them "uncivilized" and other names.
But that does not change the facts, and you cannot refute the facts.
You can only evade them. Or you can lie, and choose to live in your own made up reality.
The iPhone completely changed - revolutionized - the cellphone industry, and the iPad single-handedly revived an industry long thought dead. Do you deny it? Please give a serious answer.
I didn't downvote you, but I suspect its because of too much bias from you in favor of Apple. Patent wars aren't good for anyone regardless of who started it and like sbuk says this has to stop.
Your comment is hilarious, so please don't take this personally. It is hilarious that you would say his comment has "too much bias in favor of Apple" and then follow it with a claim of an ideological position as fact.
Your actual statement -- that you "suspect it is because of.." is probably completely correct.
The very idea that you should downvote someone because of "bias" is such a Generation-Y concept. Obviously everyone's biased. I've yet to see an anti-Apple post from anyone (including this EFF post, or any comments anywhere on HN) that wasn't full of bias.
In fact the bias is so blatent it is to the point of simply lying to try and rationalized it-- for example, claiming that Apple did nothing new, or innovative in the iPhone is absurd, since no phone worked like the iPhone at the time it was announced and the iPhone clearly had a massive impact because it was so innovative. Or another example- claiming that the Mac was a ripoff of Xerox.
So, when someone says "you're biased" it simply means "you don't agree with me, and I can't argue against your points, so I'll engage in ad hominem and call you a name"....
But the profoundly sad thing about it is that I really think they think that they are being "objective" when they believe this anti-Apple ideology.
I haven't seen any evidence of actual damage from the "patent wars", and if Apple is triumphant here, it will be good for the industry and good for consumers.
Innovation is Good.
The idea that it "has to stop" or that it is "bad" has only come up at the same time that android has come into existence, and so the motivation for claiming that patents are somehow problematic seems... excuse the use of the word-- biased!
You cannot speak positively (or even neutrally) about Apple on Hacker News, without being downvoted.
On this subject, it is simply not possible to have discussion. Hacker News has is overrun with android fans who will tell you that 2001: A Space Odessy is "prior art" for the iPhone and iPad... and mean it.
Four years ago, this site would have some good discussion on it, but at this point, most of the people who hang out here can barely remember a time before the iPhone. For them, there has always been google android and that its "silly" for Apple to be suing over this, since this is "how all phones work."
If you talk favorably about Apple you are accused of being "Biased", while the most nonsensical, irrational rant against Apple is upvoted.
I do not participate on this site much at all anymore simply because of this. You can't have good discussions here, unless you happen to hit a topic for which the reddit ideology has no opinion. (I call it the reddit ideology because that's where it seems to originate- it shares the characteristics I see on reddit all the time.)
If apple had spent 60 billions of dollars in R&D to come up with the exact same iPhone, and everything else were the same, do they still deserve a monopoly on iPhone-like devices to recoup their losses? How about 2 trillion?
You can always try to spend more money to get a product created sooner, marketed better... but that doesn't imply that the innovator deserves a sanctioned monopoly, even if temporary.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here, is the need for a better framework for determining who deserves what. If such a framework is not found, our next best alternative is a non-framework (e.g. no patent system), because history shows us that the abuse of legislated restrictions on innovations lead to great stagnation of innovation, and abuse is rampant.
You're presuming your conclusion and you've provided no evidence of it.
The calls for patent "reform" came at the same time google decided they wanted to get away with violating apple's patents (and now google has sued Apple to try and do so).
Near as I can tell, and from what I've seen in history, patents have worked out pretty well.
They protect the small guy more than they do the big guy, for instance, though this is often ignored or the opposite is claimed.
Why do you want to throw out a system that protects small innovators in favor of allowing a major company-- google-- to get away with stealing innovations?
Apple was ripped off when they invented the GUI, so they knew they would need to protect themselves and they patented their inventions in the iPhone.
This is exactly what the patent system was designed for.
If Samsung wins, then we need reforms to strengthen the system. But if Samsung loses then justice will have prevailed.
Bias like this only helps fuel a flame war. Enjoying the pull down notification menu on your iPhone? You should be. That's a cheap 'rip off' by Apple, as per your definition.
>and selling for cheaper.
There are many people who want to pay only for what a product is worth and not twice the price of what its worth.
>Why doesn't Samsung actually make something better than the iPhone.
They did, check out the Galaxy S3, still a better gadget than your iPhone. Any day.
What exactly did Samsung copy? The dimensions of an iPad? The API of the iOS touch framework? Either way, they didn't copy the implementation, and they didn't steal what wasn't already publicly known.
Get off your high horse Mr. Harrison. Smell the grass, it's growing everywhere underneath your feet, consuming you.
Open source is awesome, I submit pull requests often. Apple did not open source. Thats the problem, we live in a world with open source tools and tools for stealing music, movies etc.. and our moral compasses have adjusted to just taking. Sharing is great, but a company doesn't make something and say here take all of my ideas and make money off of it. Unless you are google, then they say "here take," but look at my ads while you are taking.
Samsung own the South Korean government. Samsung had the government delay the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea to give them time to clone it (the phone that Apple was paying them to manufacture!), so that they'd at least find it easier to break their domestic market with their clone.
Apple lost your respect for going against this?
If you were Apple, you would love to see Samsung win?
Yes. Any entity can try to delay the deployment of a product that I try to sell to them. This entity can also try to reverse engineer my product.
If Samsung and South Korea had such a tie, that's a problem for them and their citizens. To Apple, they are an encapsulated entity, and Apple chose to deal with them.
Apple can try to get the US, or states within the US to blockade the import of Samsung devices in retribution, but again this is our problem. It harms the US consumers and innovators by restricting the sales of an "immitation". Apple is hurting my future as a potential mobile device innovator. Apple is hurting itself in exchange for short term profits, as it continues to extract profits via the wrong means.
Your future business may also be damaged if your potential American customers do not have money to buy your apps, because their jobs working at Apple in the US disappeared.
And what if you also found yourself unable to sell your apps in Asia due to the actions of protectionist governments there?
Do you think that it is ok to copy GPL code and violate the terms of the GPL license? If not, then why do you think that it is ok to enforce the GPL, but not to enforce other terms whereby people reveal their work for it to be extended?
This is what the patent system creates-- an opportunity for samsung to build on top of what apple has done.
Apple published its work and how it was done for everyone to see... and it did so in exchange for a right to license that work to those who wanted to extend it (who could then license their extentions back to Apple.)
Apple even offered a license to samsung who did nothing to extend the work and just copied what Apple had done.
Apple only sued when Samsung refused to license the work.
The patent system gets people to publish their inventions openly, so that they aren't kept secret.
I think a lot of people forget that and imagine that if they got rid of patents people would still be publishing the inner workings of their inventions.
Suing Samsung was the right thing to do, if you want a world where people expand on other people's work and where companies publish their inner workings for others to extend.
Or would you say that you can violate the terms of any open source license?
After all, that's what samsung did-- violate the terms.
>> Apple published its work and how it was done for everyone to see... and it did so in exchange for a right to license that work to those who wanted to extend it
No, Apple had to publish its work to gain market share. The looks of an iPhone minus branding logo become public domain by necessity.
There is no way that Apple could have kept its iOS API secret, or the dimensions of its iPhone secret, while achieving success. Therefore, these materials cannot be the basis of a patent.
So wait...are you saying that Apple copied Samsung's "single prominent button beneath a large screen" phone design? The iPhone looks an awful lot like a refinement of the i700, i730 and i830 designs.
The Galaxy Nexus also isn't in the lawsuit. It only applies to phones no longer in the market (it takes awhile to get to trial), and the trade dress portion of the suit focuses on samsung's android skin, touchwiz, which isn't on the nexus.
Thank you for that insight mr Harrison. If you're talking about the packaging and connector, i completely agree. If you're talking about the form factor, I STRONGLY disagree.
Apple whole heartedly borrowed from knight Ridder. So what? The design is simple and makes sense. This is how society benefits - the simple stuff is copied. More complex things like algorithms deserve some protection, but not beveled edges, scrolling lists, etc.
Apple have behaved very badly in this law suit. They are not the only ones, but it does not excuse Apple at all.
My loyalty is to society and freedom to innovate (which includes standing on the shoulders of giants) - not to Apple or Samsung. I hope you share this perspective too, as your comment implied otherwise.
The patent system has people like Apple revealing the inner workings of their inventions so that other people like samsung can stand on the shoulders of giants for the small price of a royalty. It works great.
You are saying you'd like to go back to a time when there was no open publication of inventions and companies like Apple would keep their inventions secret and obscure so that others couldn't see them.
Really?
Cause if you want innovation, then you want Apple to win this lawsuit.
If they lose then they will stop publishing patents and start keeping their inventions and methods secret.
I totally agree that consumers benefit most when companies innovate. I also think that companies like Samsung can innovate on bigger items if they make their pencil icon look similar to the iPhone's pencil icon. Would you agree?
That's easy. Just look at the internal Samsung design documentation in which Samsung product engineers made recommendations to flat out imitate numerous aspects iPhone's design. Here it is for your convenience: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...
Apart from the original Galaxy S, no other Samsung phone is even remotely close looking as the iPhone. Perhaps the Galaxy tab could also make it to this list but the innovation margin in the tablet design space is very little(They did alter the design later however)
you are as confused as Apple legal. Apple's true problem when Samsung "crossed a line" isn't copying: it's brand confusion. The moment Samsung decided that they would sell units by being literally confused for an Apple device that one already knows closely is when they started accruing damages they should now pay Apple in order to make the situation equitable.
This is like Wendy's deciding: "Fuck being third. From now on our logo will be a minimalist W, but upside down, and yellow, and we will not be happy with its form until customers start streaming in at the same rate they do to a McDonald's."
Everyone who brings in prior art is missing an issue. When I first saw an iPad, I wasn't like: "Oh, a Star Trek pad!" But I did look at an iPad and say, oh, an iPad: it was a Samsung designed to confuse the customer into thinking that it was one, by infringing on iPad's design very closely.
Let's be honest. It would have been easy for Samsung to take all the design cues it wanted from Apple while adding enough of their own design so as not to cause confusion. But they chose not to do that. They chose to be confused for an iPad.
Even the lawyers on the case mistake one for the other. But they think that this "confusion" is just an effect of the infringement damage. It's not: it's the source of the infringement damage.
The problem is that for a lot of people there is only one smartphone. So if a phone has a large screen it is an iPhone, makes it kind of hard to design a smartphone that doesn't look like... a smartphone.
Just as for many an "iphone compatible car" is the same as "it has a 3.5mm socket".
For those that honestly are confused I guess they should be really happy about LCD TVs, otherwise they might have ended up with a microwave oven in their living room (yes, it is that ridiculous).
(wait a minute, glass surface, four corners, Electrolux should be afraid)
meh. for me the iconic style of LCD/TV is the Samsung style. No one copied it too closely for me ever to be confused and think a TV was a samsung. In fact, this is true for Audis and BMW's that kind of look like an iconic Mercedes, and so on. There are lots of products that take design cues, none of them have ever actually confused me. Except Samsung's iPhones (less so recently) and Samsung's iPads (very much still.)
I'm talking about "at a glance" or the briefest moment of confusion, as a highly informed consumer. Never happened with anything else. Doesn't happen with Samsung's current phones.
