Hacker News Reader

Comment by notatoad | Hacker News Reader

Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued.

Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with this farce.

View on HN

Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.

Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without being so paranoid

I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.”

I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.

I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.

I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor’s original designs and products.

The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.

The sentence you quote is a question, not an assertion. It's also clearly a rhetorical question and the implied answer is "no".

You're trying to apply common-sense to law. That doesn't work. The court has to assume the patent is valid until it's proven otherwise. The patent was legitimately granted though it can and will be challenged. This is important because it explains why these patents are continuously being tested in the court. Apple is being offensively sued by various parties themselves. They need to have strong patents that have been validated by court rulings to defend themselves. Companies are less likely to sue Apple if they have a strong war chest of patents. The reason certain companies are able to get 'picked on' is the lack of a strong war chest to defend themselves. Samsung is a very rich company yet they are getting it from both Apple and previously Microsoft who simply offered licensing. Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation if they don't play by the absurd rules.

do you really think blatent patent trolling of competitors is all just a defensive move?

don't hate the playa, hate the game

none of these companies are leveraging truly novel patents in their lawsuits. few of these companies are even generating novel patents. they're all accumulating (likely bogus) patents to wield as a club against their competitors. the theory was mutual assured destruction would keep all parties in line but Intellectual Ventures pioneered tactical patent strikes that forced all players into an ever escalating cycle of violence. now they're all just scrambling trying to stay ahead. put simply, it's sue or be sued

it sucks, but until there's meaningful patent reform, it's how things are going to be

don't hate the playa, hate the game

That is by far the most despicable cliché I know. You choose which games to play and how to play them. The whole point of having principles is that sometimes you do things that aren’t optimal game strategies.

For example, you choose not to murder your business competitors. You choose not to sell products that kill your customers. Do we let tobacco executives off the hook because they’re just “playing the game?” How about the cocaine cartel?

A gentle way to put it is, “This is a false dichotomy. Hate them both."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com