Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

TeMPOraL

> not wanting others to clone the best features?

Yes. It hinders progress.

Also for all this patent mess with Samsung, et al.

View on HN

Oh no, not another thread about whether patents should exist or not or for how many years.

The fact is that they exist, iPhone was REVOLUTIONARY when announced and soon after others started cloning it. Go and look at Samsung and Android pre-iPhone and let's talk. Just because something is copied a lot doesn't mean that Apple should roll over. Nokia, for example, came up with a great phone that doesn't seem to clone the iPhone.

By the way, E=Mc2 is pretty obvious to me too--now.

It wasn't revolutionary. It was evolutionary. There's a big difference.

Are these two concepts exclusive?

I think so, see my reply to rorrr above. To my mind, revolutionary = patentable, evolutionary = not so much.

Yes, one means slow change, the other means fast change.

I would rather say that one (revolution) means turning the thing on its head and (often) starting from scratch. The other (evolution) means building incrementally on whats come before.

By your logic, Google should sue Apple over the new maps in iOS6 because it's pretty much a copy of the Google Maps app.

If the "new maps in iOS6 because [are] pretty much a copy of the Google Maps app" then Google should be able and should sue Apple.

Regarding design protection: Ford can't copy Jaguar or Ferrari, can it?

Those two cars (Ford vs Jaguar) seem no more dissimilar to me than a Samsung Galaxy S2 and an iPhone: http://www.carautoportal.com/car-images/ford/ford-gt/ford-gt... http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/05/Jaguar-C-X...

That cannot be solved in a few HN posts; judges, juries and appeal courts decide that. My point was that certain designs are unique, virtually all cars have four tires, round steering wheel, baggage area, airbags etc but we kinda know when we see a Jaguar, Porsche, Corvette or a Ferrari.

Not really. From the point of view of someone not into cars, Porsche and Corvette have differences and similarities, but only by looking at the brand name on the car you know which one is which. Similarly, someone knowledgeable about smartphones can tell an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy apart even without reading the brand name (that is nonetheless well visible on Samsung phones). I haven't heard about Porsche suing Corvette because they have copied the design and users may be deceived, and I don't expect the same happening about smartphones.

to be fair to onetimeuse001, Ford did own Jaguar at one time, so it might be a bad comparison.

Honestly I thought about it and wanted to check but many brands have been bought and sold so many times :). The idea was that each unique car has their own look and design and that sets them apart from the rest.

Apple made the Google maps app.

Nice use of a one-time-use account.

Go and look at the LG Prada prior to the iPhone. Appletard.

iPhone or Android is more than one feature, so "check LG Prada" isn't enough.

The only Apple product I have is iTunes and spent probably $50 with them. Any more insults?

This comment doesn't belong on HN. Please don't be rude.

Actually this whole discussion doesn't belong on HN.

By the way, E=Mc2 is pretty obvious to me too--now.

And if physicists had been forbidden to use the formula without paying severe fees after it was discovered, we'd be a lot worse off.

But that's not Apple's problem, is it? Nokia was the first to sue them, Microsoft sued Android manufacturers, too, and they also have to pay a per device bill due to patent law. It's great that in the sciences there exists no such thing as patents, and I also believe that patent law is a mess. But why is Apple measured on different moral standards than other companies? Why should they not go for what is, by current law, rightfully theirs? Just as Nokia and Microsoft did. And I'd bet a lot that if Samsung had come out with the first iPhone, they'd go after copycats just as well. It's business practice.

I think the point where Apple goes too far is the perception that too much is never enough. They're already the most successful business in history - do they really need to use lawsuits to ensure they have no competitors?

The fact that they use these frivolous patents to do so is just icing on the righteous indignation cake.

Looks like Apple managed to eke out a bit of money from their products, despite all the copycats, though.

The world would clearly be a better place if only Xerox could use the GUI and mouse. Or if only Opera were allowed to use tabs. Or if only Apple could use multi-touch.

Do you see the problem with that argument? You're hurting consumers when you limit the technologies a company can employ. And when it gets into the realm of shapes, then you have an incredibly broken system.

The other side: I would not spend $X billion and risk bankruptcy to invent something that can be stolen 48 hours after I patent it. Do you see the problem with that argument? You're hurting consumers when you don't allow companies to profit for a while from the technologies a company risked everything to invent.

Xerox patents have a limited time, they (maybe) can be licensed or exchanged with other patents licenses. Or, gasp....a resourceful company can invest billions to come with a new way to skin the cat.

>> And when it gets into the realm of shapes, then you have an incredibly broken system.

The biggest lie told by Samsung's shills to hide the details. If that was the case Apple would have sued everyone making phones with round corners. Samsung has a habit of waiting to see what sells and then clone them to get all the benefits without the risks.

>I would not spend $X billion and risk bankruptcy to invent something

Then spend that money on resources and sell them for a profit. Buy a mine or a farm or something else that works with that perspective.

And now imagine Apple had done exactly that. Would the consumer really have it better now?

I don't even have to think.

Yes.

I read an article on furniture design recently and how it is almost impossible to patent new designs. The article was showing how small design companies and mom and pop design businesses were struggling because every great design was ripped off by larger companies with a couple of minor changes and sold for way cheaper than the small company could manufacturer for.

That being said: Patent law is broken as it is now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com