Wil Shipley on Apple's Patent Enforcement | Hacker News Reader

Wil Shipley on Apple's Patent Enforcement

wilshipley.com

193 pointsswilliams107 comments

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...

True, but my question is, why not go after HTC et al sooner? There were iPhone knockoffs within months of its announcement that could have been sued. And why sue HTC, and not Google or Motorola or Palm?

Maybe they want to scare hardware makers out of using Android.

"True, but my question is, why not go after HTC et al sooner?"

Nobody sues if they can avoid it. Lawsuits are extremely expensive, and companies will exhaust all other options first. The lawsuit means Apple demanded more than HTC was willing to pay, and decided they would fair better in court.

Also, "iPhone knockoffs" doesn't necessarily mean patent infringements. Without doing in-depth research into the specific claims infringed, you can't say for sure whether any infringement took place.

Patents and patent law are incredibly complicated. There is no simple answer to _why_.

While that may be logical, it may not be true in this instance. Apple has a track record of filing lawsuits it knows it almost certainly won't win. I don't think they're afraid of losing money on a lawsuit.

Apple has a track record of filing lawsuits it knows it almost certainly won't win.

Examples?

Well, starting with the famous UI lawsuit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

That's an example where they didn't win, but I know of no reason to think that they knew they certainly wouldn't. It was definitely not obvious at the time that copyright could not apply to interfaces as a whole, and Microsoft's prior consent to a licensing arrangement suggests that both parties had at one time considered it a real possibility.

I'm not saying Apple should have won or that that case isn't in some ways relevant--only that it wasn't certain that they would lose.

Bait & switch. Apple wanted these technologies to be adopted and define what a modern SmartPhone is. Now that it's established it's very unlikely HTC or anyone else will ditch these technologies. Easier to just pay Apple some royalties. Even if they do design around Apple patents there are millions of these phones out there already to ensure a good settlement for Apple and it will put their competition at a disadvantage. This is of course assuming Apple wins.

HTC was probably a target due to their relationship with Google and strong support of Android. HTC relies on Android for the bulk of their handsets these days so they might be more likely to reach a deal with Apple. Moto only has a couple Android handsets and likely has their own patent war chest to fight back with. Palm isn't selling enough handsets to be a good target at this point. They'll probably fall into line if HTC loses. (or they'll be out of business)

Google, Motorola, and Palm all have large patent portfolios to defend themselves with. Motorola literally invented the cell phone. Palm has a ton of important patents from the Treo days. Google has been gearing up for fights with the likes of Microsoft and Amazon.

For example, Engadget ran an analysis on Palm vs. Apple a while ago. They found that both companies infringed heavily on each other's patents, for things from list scrolling to three-way calling. Starting that particular food-fight would probably end badly for both companies.

HTC is a much softer target. HTC is relatively new in the business, with a smaller patent portfolio. They're also a foreign corporation, which may give Apple some home advantage in the courtroom.

At its core, this is all about Google. Every single Google developer phone has been HTC, as well as the G1 and Nexus One. If Apple prevails, that would be a pretty big blow to Google just as Android is beginning to spread its wings.

HTC is not new to the business, Apple is new to the business. HTC has been around since before the iMac.

HTC was founded in 1997, and was strictly an ODM for the first few years. They're extremely new in comparison to a company like Motorola.

Not all of the complaints are cellphone specific. Some of the patents in the filings are from the NeXT days, long before HTC was around.

The timing is a strategic move by Apple. If they went after HTC early, there would have been little damage to them (and Google), and given them time to adjust their strategy.

Now, both parties are "all-in", and by attacking now, Apple can hurt both companies badly, and put the competition back 2-3 years.

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.

I can remember once representing the principal architect of the ScriptX language used at Kaleida Labs (a 1992 joint venture between Apple and IBM) and, when going for meetings at Kaleida, constantly being made aware of the role within the company of a team whose sole job was, day in and day out, to scour everything that was being done for patentability. Given such a focus, you can be assured that countless patents were filed from that effort, not so much because they were useful as because this helped build an IP arsenal to use against competitors.

Intel used patents in this way for years to intimidate and harass potential competitors in the desktop platform that it effectively monopolized for years. Apple is doing the same thing now with respect to its platform. What amazes me is not that Apple is being a jerk about this but that so many believed it would be otherwise. While Apple may in many ways be a rebel company (or at least has cultivated its image this way), when it comes to IP protections, it plays strictly by the standard script.

I wouldn't call it the standard script. Most tech companies actually do show restraint and use patents for defensive purposes only. In fact I heard a heart-warming story at lunch today about how one of the top guys at a large well-known software company recently shut down an internal proposal to start using its IP more offensively. This is, however, the standard script for Apple, originator of the long, infamous, ultimately unsuccessful attempt to sue Microsoft for "look and feel" infringements. For a company that stole so much of its own core technology in the early days from Xerox, Apple has never been shy about making overly broad IP ownership claims. Their legal department has historically been one of the most aggressive and overreaching in the industry. I agree with you that it is surprising that so many people are only now seeing Apple in this light.

Apple did not steal from Xerox. They licensed the good parts legitimately and made substantive improvements. Xerox's stuff didn't draw overlapping windows properly, for instance; redrawing to an occluded window surface was a problem for them and in order to redraw they basically had to redraw the entire window stack. Apple's menu bar (at the top of the screen, where menu bars belong) was a huge usability win over the context menus Xerox employed, enabling -- among other things -- the UI to be manipulated with a mouse with a single button. And on and on.

Look, Apple defines entire classes of devices. That's what they do. Look at the history of PCs, media players, and smartphones: everything that came before Apple's entry into the market was a rough prototype, and everything that came after was a knockoff. Their IP claims are not overly broad for a company whose work shapes the entire industry.

Picasso had a saying: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. -Steve Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y

Despite the encroachment of patents on the ridiculous (one-click, etc), I respect the value of having a patent system when it comes to real technology or design that deliver a new type of value to the consumer. Its a noble attempt to reward innovators. While weakness in the system has been top of mind recently with big player oppressing the little guy, or holding companies using patents to extort money from innovators, patents can also protect the little guy. So, just because there has been some excess, we shouldn't see patents, as a whole, as a bad thing. Instead, what we may need to reconsider are the bounds of what should be patentable, and possibly duration.

In regards to Apple, it may be that some of these patents in question are completely legitimate, and are consistent with the spirit of the idea of patents. I would not view Apple in a negative light for protecting what others might have knocked-off. Lets see how the case works out. It may turn out that many of Apple's claims are invalidated through prior art, etc. But if they do hold, I say good for Apple. BTW, I carry an Android phone.

The patent system is a attempt at achieving a noble goal (rewarding inventors) but in my opinion it fails both at:

- Generally failing to reward innovators.

- Encouraging more benefits than it costs to society.

The former is because:

- Generally individuals cannot afford to effectively use the patent process.

- Any innovation usually has a couple of good ideas but requires many other (already patented) building blocks which makes the new innovation unprofitable or impossible to pursue.

- Companies that can afford to file and use patents generally can't realize their new ideas, or if they do, not to the full extent of their promise. (Every company has limited resources and a patent on, say, the mouse has a whole load of possible applications.)

- Technology moves so fast than 20 years is essentially 5 product life cycles.

I would argue that the patent system does nothing at all to deliver value to the consumer.

Generally things are cheapest for consumers when there is a large market of near-homogeneous products, such as consumer televisions - exactly the kind of market patents are designed to stop by the granting of temporary monopolies. Yet in that market (where everyone can build a TV) we see pretty rapid innovation - when I grew up in 1980 we had one black and white TV. Now we can reasonably expect that 3D TVs will be available for twenty bucks before 2020.

> So, just because there has been some excess, we shouldn't see patents, as a whole, as a bad thing.

You say 'some' excess, but it's my understanding that the vast majority of patent applications and patent lawsuits fall under the 'abuses' that you're talking about. How often is the patent system really protecting the little guy vs being used as a tool by large corporations to oppress the little guy?

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

Apple isn't a person, they are a company, and their primary goal is to make money, not be nice. In recent years their R&D budget has topped $1 billion. I don't think it's far fetched to assume that they are going to extract everything of value, patent everything they can, that springs from that investment. To do otherwise would be a disservice to their shareholders.

_I_ don't like what Apple is doing, but they are following the current rules of the game. If you don't like the outcome, then work to change the rules. Expecting Apple to play nice is unrealistic. They are going to do whatever is in their own best self interest. That's how our economic system works.

Believe me, I understand. That's part of the insanity of the system, it's turning everyone into assholes, especially publicly traded companies like Apple.

A large part of the problem is that most people aren't even aware that there is a problem. That's why public discussion such as this is valuable: if enough people are aware, then change is possible.

Except that market perception IS part of the game. Perhaps I'm too far into the echo chamber, but after this I think a lot more people are going to feel that twinge that pg wrote about. http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

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.

Touché sir, I should have narrowed my words a bit, I did not mean to claim that the entire idea of patents is bankrupt, I'm sure there are scenarios where it's helpful.

But as you state, in software, it's very detrimental, and I'm sure software isn't the only industry where that's the case. That's why we need a far more nuanced approach. We could start by not handing out 20-year monopolies for ideas that take only a few months to implement and bring to market.

In general, I think that it would be useful for all legislation to carry along with it legally binding "original intent" written down in broad, layman terms. That way a legal framework would exist to protect people from legislative hypocrisy.

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...

No one ever said the Patent office was useful, competent, or smart.

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... ) 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.

Which is a software patent.

Software is also somewhat protected because unlike a physical device reverse engineering is far more difficult. I can open pretty much anything and have a CAD model in less time than the original engineer took to design it.

True, I have learn programming and experience disassembling programs, and is really really difficult to understand how a program work just this way. If the program has millions of lines of code it is nearly impossible.

Patents are a contract, the state gives you monopoly, you give the state the knowledge(with plans, drawings and explanations) of how your thing works. Without showing the code, you should not be granted a patent.

The problem is ... all innovation is moving in the direction of software innovation.

For any given field, it is simply much easier to have a single, general purpose machine into which special instructions for special circumstances are programmed. You can see everything from 3-d metal printers to synthetic genetic computers on the horizon. Software will fuel all of these.

So if any future patent system is going to be a software patent system. And we've seen how evil software patents are.

There isn't an easy middle ground.

I did not state or imply that Apple is not being an asshole. I was simply pointing out that Jobs made clear from the very introduction of the iPhone how much of an asshole he intended to be in regard to defending iPhone patents, and thus no one should now be surprised about what is happening.

"First to market is already a huge competitive advantage." In some circumstances yes. In some circumstances, a truly innovative and inventive creation can still be duplicated by an un-innovative competitor in a matter of days.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

I think in this case the fifth definition applies?

> - 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.

None of those definitions obviously apply, why bother listing them?

If you stretch the fifth definition to include Apple, then you would brand any company trying to enforce any patent against anybody a patent troll.

I'm not familiar with all the Android devices out there (I'm assuming that you're referring to Android device manufacturers here), but don't most of them have keyboards and trackballs vs. iPhone's slate design? Seems like two differnet form factors to me.

The iPad's form factor is a tablet, so I'd say it's a safe bet to say that tablet manufacturers will keep on manufacturing tab... I mean copying iPads form factor ;)

I doubt that it is really that personal. Both companies wanted to move into the mobile space, but for completely different reasons. Google is focused on the internet and data, whereas Apple is focused on media. The boardroom split became inevitable when they both entered the space, but I doubt it was a personal beef.

"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.

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

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 :) ).

Or the people who want an option that does more and would rather cut their own feet off than use iTunes. Surely there's more than just me.

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.

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

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.

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.

Some of those patents Apple is using are hardware.

I think this is spot on. While I agree with everyone who wishes Apple weren't doing this, it feels like a manouvre intended to bolster their fight against Nokia.

"Look! We believe in our patents so much, that we're going after other companies that infringe, too!"

If it also has a deleterious effect on Android adoption, so much the better, right?

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!

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

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.

> let's not be angry at tigers for chasing sweet little antelopes.

It's a bit of a different scenario when the antelope is yours.

Why would we stop purchasing their products if we weren't outraged or in any way angry? And I think there is human harm done, albeit possibly second degree or third degree, if progress and innovation are retarded as a result of their actions. I think there is some justification in labeling Apple's actions "evil".

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.

Are you saying that shareholders are twisting Steve Jobs' arm, forcing him to sue HTC?

My humble guess is that Steve Jobs would, in fact, not have been thrown ass-first out of Apple had he not.

Apple did this because they wanted to, not because anyone else pressured them into it.

apple did this because they thought enforcement would make money for its shareholders

No, he's saying that Jobs has a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of Apple, and that given the reality of tech business, he must play the patent game.

Every other tech company does it; why hold Apple to an exceptional standard?

The OP is not making an ethical or moral critique.

As regards to Apple, he's merely saying "in the long-term" it is bad business as Apple will experience a brain drain, and, there is an implicit shaming aspect (remember those blue boxes Steve? ;) by pointing out past actions of Steve Jobs himself.

Every other tech company does it; why hold Apple to an exceptional standard?

Is that really true? Can you cite Google suing to enforce a patent? What about HTC iself?

Google is a pretty young company:

can you cite a consistent pattern in their past that would argue they would never do so?

(I can cite this: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/google-wants-u-s...)

How about this?

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

Why is Google applying for patents? For fun?

HTC was already mentioned in the article: they are young and do not have the patent portfolio to play with the big boys.

Wait-wait-wait. So is every other company doing this or aren't they? You're moving the goalposts pretty fast here.

Google is young (>10 years), but they have a large portfolio. But you can't find a "pattern that would argue they would never do so"? And that proves that Apple is doing really just the same thing everybody else are? The fact that others really aren't, but you can't find a proof that they never would?

How do you know that this action by Apple will result in a positive outcome long-term? It's already hurting their public perception among developers, and in time, it'll hurt their workforce. And that's assuming they don't lose.

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.

When was the last time Apple offensively sued for IP?

they were getting there with the QuickTime code, when MS settled that time for $150M... back in 97 or 96.

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.

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

Granted, I don't think these have been used offensively, but here are two patents that they benefit greatly from.

Menu bar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_bar#Ease_of_use

iPod click wheel - http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-receive...

I have no doubt that they would protect these if other companies infringed upon them. They offer significant usability advantages that Apple doesn't want others to have.

What we're seeing now is a bit different. The market is moving so quickly now that Apple is trying to setup some boundaries that they don't want others to touch. I don't think they really had to do this with these examples. I'm not saying any of this is right, I'm just not all that surprised by it happening.

The cited reference in the menu bar link is a design patent, which is very different from a regular patent. Anyone can implement a menu-bar system that lives at the top of the screen--it just can't look exactly like Apple's.

Great artists sue?

sure they do. http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/joe-satriani-speaks-a...

"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.

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.

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.

Yeah, everybody knows that Apple invented PCs, OSes, GUI interfaces, word processors and everything else. Microsoft would've never succeeded without copying stuff ... contrary to other people's beliefs, the backing of IBM didn't help one bit.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You can't really patent an interface. An interface can be part of a patent, but not a patent by itself.

You can register ("patent") a design.

Design patents are totally different than regular patents though. I have never heard of anyone getting sued because of a design patent.

No, you get sued then because of trade dress.

Try putting your own beverage in bottles shaped like Coke's iconic curve bottle. Then you'll hear of it.

That's trademark law. Not the same thing as patent law, which in turn is not the same thing as copyright law.

The design of a functional thing may be covered under a design patent; and indeed the Coke bottle shape is covered by such a patent.

Trademark law refers primarily to the design of nonfunctional things such as logos, the Deep Note sound, etc.

One instance I know of is when Gibson Guitars sued Paul Reed Smith Guitars over the single-cut design Gibson uses for its Les Paul guitars (and won).

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)

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

"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.

He had a tweet earlier today explicitly saying that Apple copied him, and that he wouldn't have sued even if he'd had a patent. Seems he's removed the tweet now, though (can't find it) so you'll just have to take my word for it I guess...

Nope. In the Washington Post Shipley says that is not the case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...

Interesting as Apple clearly copied the look and feel of Wil's application Delicious Library of use in thier iBook store application.

Either that or somebody at Apple once went to a library. Wood shelves holding books... profound.

Either that or somebody at Apple once went to a library.

If you read more into it, the iPad team is where 3 Delicious Monster employees ended up, including the lead designer.

Graphic concepts too vague to even claim copyright of are not equal to patents. Not saying that makes this right on Apple's part, just saying it's a world of difference.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com