Hacker News Reader

Comment by SODaniel | Hacker News Reader

I have to say that I am happy to see a major company saying what everyone is thinking. It is truly absurd that Apple has the audacity to claim some 'we invented it' right to any type of Cellphone tech or Tablet hardware.

ALL Apples success is derived from the UI/UX side and the fact that iTunes laid the pavement for the 'app' concept.

Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only turn people off their products, and once the 'Steve Jobs effect' wears off, they are nothing but another company selling cellphones and tablets.

And then, it might be time to look elsewhere for your 401k investment.

View on HN

> I have to say that I am happy to see a major company saying what everyone is thinking.

Many of us are not thinking that. Many of us are thinking Apple didn't claim to have invented 3G radio, but purchased Qualcomm chips, and as the UK courts found, in licensing the technology to Qualcomm and its customers, Samsung had already "exhausted" its patent rights.

It's on the record that Samsung changed its tune on these patents in April 2011, looking for something to use to counter Apple's concerns about the wholesale appropriation of iPad trade dress (device, packaging presentation, box cover art) by Samsung's me-too tablet.

As Samsung's own quote notes, "Apple relied heavily on Samsung‘s technology to enter the telecommunications space, and it continues to use Samsung‘s technology to this day in its iPhone and iPad products. For example, Samsung supplies the flash memory, main memory, and application processor for the iPhone." Apple was happy to pay for those, just as they paid for radio chips.

Samsung now claims they want an astonishing percentage of Apple's revenue from phones for these patent rights that courts have found they'd already exhausted, even though Apple sells versions of the devices w/o 3G radios, indicating the majority of value of the device has nothing to do with Samsung's 3G even if the patent rights were not exhausted. Even aside from how much of the device value is thanks to Samsung's chip (Samsung says all of it, while even you say the UI/UX must be part of it), Samsung's percentage demand is not FRAND.

At least, this is what some people think.

> they are nothing but another company selling cellphones and tablets

Apple is not a hardware company. As someone recently put it on HN, "ALL Apples success is derived from the UI/UX side". And I'm also not sure that's true, considering the success of Macbook Air containing the same UI/UX as the rest of the Macbook line. The truth is they are a platform company, as noted in other threads here.

>Samsung now claims they want an astonishing percentage of Apple's revenue from phones for these patent rights that courts have found they'd already exhausted, even though Apple sells versions of the devices w/o 3G radios, indicating the majority of value of the device has nothing to do with Samsung's 3G even if the patent rights were not exhausted. Even aside from how much of the device value is thanks to Samsung's chip (Samsung says all of it, while even you say the UI/UX must be part of it), Samsung's percentage demand is not FRAND.

More importantly, how could Samsung claim Apple infringed on their patents when Apple purchased the chips from Qualcomm, who are licensed to produce and sell the chips?

It's simple; they're just wishing away the patent exhaustion doctrine.

>Apple is not a hardware company.

Yes, they are. They produce and sell hardware. Is that all they do/are? No. But they are indeed a hardware company.

This post is a rant of a fanboy which is why I downvoted it. It's one thing to prove your point but you didn't even do that. The BGR report is garbage as is most of their posts that doesn't involve Gellar's connections at RIM.

No one is claiming the idea of button-free phone; not even Apple. What you mention as the UI/UX experience is what Apple is mostly suing for. I don't claim for it to be right or wrong.

What defined the iPhone was not the hardware but software and that is what Apple is going after. Samsung is suing over FRAND patents which is something else entirely. Apple's not suing over Samsung over what they asked them to build.

This patent nonsense that exists on HN has really got to stop. It has affected very few except the claims by Lodsys. Do you really care about the brinksmanship that is conducted by two giants?

>What you mention as the UI/UX experience is what Apple is mostly suing for.

Oh..Really? Then why are they suing the rest of the OEM's whose UI/UX is not even remotely similar?

Before you make a point, its good to educate yourself with the topic, atleast to an average extent. Just my 2 cents.

And btw, your name certainly looks interesting =)

You're not mad that Apple is suing. You're mad that Apple is winning some arguments.

What they've been winning is off of UI/UX. It's one thing to argue if software patents should even exist but you were not even arguing that. It's hard to tell what you're against other than Apple. You believe that Samsung is right for no apparent reason.

All I can tell you is that I don't care and I'm tired of these stories on HN being ranked so highly since it's about ideology and not how it affects the lives of anyone.

>And btw, your name certainly looks interesting =)

I thought it was appropriate. What is your point?

Why are you so angry?

Apple fanboi?

Exactly.

I have learned to basically ignore technoslut's comments.

Just look at his previous comments. He's been a staunch defender of Apple.

I'm not defending Apple in this situation. I don't care about this patent nonsense. It has replaced chess as the game of kings.

If you looked at my comments recently I question the motives behind Apple bloggers I read. I've criticized Apple for the money they keep offshore to avoid US taxes. I've even been criticized for saying that open source was the solution for Maps and no one company should have control over that future.

What you want me to say is that I agree with one philosophy. I don't.

Because it is annoying when someone who is clearly clueless questions your intelligence.

Neya is the equivalent of Fox News.

I love HN since you arrived. I stumble upon some comment dripping with uninformed ridiculousness about Apple and nine times out of ten whatever I was about to say in my reply has already been said by you but better.

>uninformed ridiculousness about Apple

Justify and the whole world shall agree. Right now to us, you just look like just another fanboy.

Accusing someone as clueless doesn't make you look intelligent. If you don't give a valid reason, then your accusations are invalid. I have justified my point, (read above). You need to justify yours.

>Neya is the equivalent of Fox News.

I think you're crossing a line here. I know you're too insignificant to be given any importance, but then, do mind your tone. And stop following me, please!

And looking at some of your comments, you have a very good history of getting pwned I guess. Please stop embarrassing yourself =)

I'm angry about all of these stories making it to the HN front page whether it favors Apple or not. There are other stories that are more newsworthy. This has been going on for two years and has affected the lives of no one. It is only meant to push whatever cause you believe.

I thought my reply to whom I originally commented to stated this. I don't come to this site looking for stories that is only to incite a rooting interest. I come here for things that matter to everyone even though the bias is towards technology.

No, they've been winning on patents on round rectangles and lack of bezels.

Those are design patents which are more like a copyright of a physical item. For example, the design of a Coca-Cola bottle was originally protected under a design patent.

Yes it's a weird name. They're also easy to identify because the registrations all begin with the letter D.

"Do you really care about the brinksmanship that is conducted by two giants?"

Yes I do. Samsung is disabling useful features on my phone because of it. This might also affect my ability to purchase the phone I want.

“Samsung is disabling useful features on my phone”

If you like those features, Apple has a phone with your name on it :)

Which is devoid of many of the other features that I want, which are available on android phones.

Blame the game not the player.

Campaign against the patent system. Don't expect public companies not to use the rules as they exist to their best interest. I don't even see anything unethical in wanting to keep some exclusive features (although 20 years seems too long).

I do also think that Samsung probably did cross the line between taking inspiration and wholesale copying and attempting to look like Apple.

Companies have short-term and long-term interests. There's plenty of sense in trying to convince a company that their pursuit of their short-term best interest is at odds with their long-run interests.

Separately, I'll note that "blame the game, not the player" rings particularly hollow when the players have plenty of influence on the people who write the rules.

Yes there are long and short term interests but maximization of current smartphone/tablet market share is likely to have a long term beneficial impact as people get locked into the eco-system. I don't see a persuasive argument that making life expensive for Android isn't a good play, and that there shouldn't be a wish to different either. They also need to draw a line (with some help from the courts about where imitation stops being flattery and becomes infringement.

Fair point on influence of the rules although I don't recall any of the tech giants opposing software patents or patent exclusivity. That certainly includes Google. If you can point me to a smartphone manufacturer that opposes software patents or design patents (registered designs in the UK) I would be very interested although I doubt I'll actually become their customer as I'm already locked into an eco-system!

"I do also think that Samsung probably did cross the line between taking inspiration and wholesale copying and attempting to look like Apple."

Most people point at the physical design of Samsung phones to make this point, but in all seriousness Samsung just plain didn't copy the iPhones design. Take a look at these two products Samsung made, both of which predate the iPhone and both of which show the exact design language that Samsung has used on the Galaxy * products:

http://imgur.com/a/divSu#0

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-f...

Not somewhat similar to the design language, exactly the same. From the rounded corners, to the bezel, to the single button on the bottom of the device. This was Samsung's design language before the iPhone ever existed.

So you think Samsung ought to be able to sue you for patent infringement for buying a cell-phone?

Because fan-boy "rah rah fuck-Apple"isms aside, that's literally the legal outcome that Samsung is pushing for here. They licensed their patents to Qualcomm, who used them to build chips which were sold to Apple. Now, Samsung is arguing that the exhaustion doctrine should no longer exist and that Apple, by buying those chips, re-infringed on Samsung's patents (and, consequently that you re-infringe those patents when you buy a phone, or someone else's patents when you buy a TV, or a car, or a shoe, or anything).

What Samsung is arguing for here would make the already fucked up patent system thousands upon thousands of times worse.

What I found odd is that even though an iPhone or a Galaxy phone is using so much more important technologies in them, they get to banned for stuff like slide to unlock or pulling results from multiple databases. Even if you argue that it was an "innovative idea", in the end it's still just an idea, and the execution of it is not that hard to warrant a full ban of the whole product from the market for "copying their technology".

I agree that products shouldn't be banned based on small infringements, but it sounds like Apple doesn't want to license things like slide-to-unlock for any amount of money.

Which is, of course, their perogative.

The question is what to do with a product that's already on store shelves that has been found to be unknowingly infringing one of these "unlicensable" patents. Is it fair to ban it (potentially imposing massive losses) or should the court award some "reasonable" amount of damages?

> Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only turn people off their products

Actually, I doubt it will, as very few people care about the rivalry between large corporations. Apple even started suing mom & pop cafes that had the apple logo or just the word "Apple" in their name, and even that didn't hurt their image much.

If that's true, I don't think a lot of people know about it.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/computerkonzern-verkla... [süddeutsche.de -> in german]

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20111026-38449.html [thelocal.de]

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/apple-wants-a-german-cafe... [geek.com]

Everything except the first link are the product of looking for English reports on the same issue, so I do not vouche for their quality.

The trademark arguably [arguably, not obviously] infringes on Apple's trademark, and one of the peculiarities of trademark law is that if you do not vigorously defend a trademark, it's scope and strength diminish.

Short term yes. Though I think we all remember Microsoft walking down the same path and basically paving the way for Apple to become 'the underdog' in the 90s and it sure hasn't helped their public image.

This is true in Silicon Valley's startup world.

A lot of people here dislike Microsoft.

It's hard to find a startup built on the .Net stack.

Microsoft has the BizSpark program that gives away software licenses for free to startups but that didn't make a difference.

I'm starting to see the same sentiment against Apple though not yet to a point that they will be abandoning development on the iOS platform.

Right. Ultimately Microsoft's perceived opposition to the evolving open internet hurt it's perception among developers very badly. Where in the early 90's "everyone" wanted to work for MS and develop windows, by the end of the decade everyone wanted to be working with web apps and JS and Linux. Fast forward to today, and they're just another software company with no particular technical leadership ability.

Right now, the Apple bandwagon is still really full, so it may be hard to tell: but I'm seeing more smart hackers jumping off than on these days. In 10 years, how likely is it that Apple will be just another dinosaur milking a legacy OS?

What does trademark protection (which they are legally required to do) have to do with patents?

Apple didn't even come close to laying the pavement for the "app" concept. I was installing apps on my palm m100 back junior high school. They were paid, there was an app store, it just wasn't connected to the device because the device didn't have a network stack.

Do I really need to point out that Samsung are awarded nearly an order of magnitude more patents each year than Apple? (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/topo_11.htm)

In order the most patents were awarded to IBM, Samsung, Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba and Microsoft. So Samsung is no. 2, while Apple is all the way down in 38th place.

If anything, I'm willing to bet that Samsung and the other Asian manufacturers are the overzealous ones trying to use patents to muscle their way into the higher end of the technology market.

More patents are now awarded to foreign countries than the USA. Mostly Japan, Korea, Germany and Taiwan.

If you think Apple is on the wrong end of the argument, well I guess you don't want a domestic technology market?

What's more, the South Korean government (owned by Samsung) has been blocking and putting up barriers to foreign phones for years, including delaying the introduction of the original iPhone to South Korea, to give Samsung and co. a chance to develop competitors.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html if you want more info on South Korean protectionism in regards to phones.

You may also wish to read:

'Republic of Samsung' Confronts a Backlash http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/25/business/fi-samsung2...

This may also interest you:

Samsung doesn't find satirical spoof amusing http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-korea-sa...

Odd that I'm not reading so much anger about all that Samsung has done on HackerNews and Reddit.

ALL Apples success is derived from the UI/UX side...

And isn't TouchWiz eerily similar to iOS's UI/UX?

You're right. When Apple introduced the notification system I was like... I have seen that somewhere.

TouchWiz itself is similar to most other OSes. I has a "desktop" with icons and a "start menu" with more software to put on the desktop.

But does someone have a patent or design patent that covers the Apple implementation of notification? If not it doesn't matter. If so Apple should have to work around it.

There is a separate question about what should or should not be granted and whether the law should be changed regarding patentability and duration. Now I think the law should be changed and less should be patentable but that isn't the law or the situation now.

Google has applied for such a patent. It has not (yet) been granted, but there's no particular reason to expect it won't be, given the track record of the USPTO. Especially since many of the infringements Apple claims began in the period between application and grant, it will be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.

It will be interesting. Agree about USPTO track record but I do wonder if there is more prior art in this area, I seem to remember Symbian having some form of notifications which may at least limit the scope of the Google patent.

I'm not familiar with the details of how patent protection is handled before grant. I would guess that licensing fees are not due for the period before grant but that as soon as it is issued you should work around it or pay licensing fees.

Assuming it is granted and no cross license is in place by then I assume Apple would try to work around it pretty quickly. I don't see Google offering it for a fair price as they are more interested in market share and leverage than cash too.

> Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only turn people off their products,

I don't really care about lawsuits, I care about the product. I will buy Apple if they offer the best product on the market. Lawsuits won't change that.

You're not the average consumer.

Apple owes everything to effectively cultivating the notion that they are cool and unique, the product of choice for young rebels and everyone who thinks different.

Cool enables their huge margins, grants instant forgiveness for any slip-ups and allows them to essentially dictate what constitutes the "best product".

That's why they're fighting so hard. Samsung is a threat to their cool.

Sigh. No, they "owe everything" to effectively building the only cell phone that didn't blow goats.

...9 years after the iMac and 6 years after the iPod. Apple doesn't exist to release the iPhone without first being resurrected by those two products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com