Hacker News Reader

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab.

I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.

Probably?

Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.

Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.

And Apple added a lot to the original.

> And Apple added a lot to the original.

Ah, sarcasm.

you should really take a look at what they "copied"

Let's see: Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointer. Which of those were Apple's invention?

Like 'a black rectangle with rounded corners'?

Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s...

Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation.

According to Xerox:

''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''

Wow, Apple even copied Xerox's non-apologies for lost lawsuits.

"Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple in exchange for access to PARC.": http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-licens...

Yet Xerox PARC is still sitting in a basement.

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

I thought that only applied to trademarks.

It does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).

It applies to patents, too.

Not true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.

In Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches.

It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.

I can't find any reference to this. Could you point me at a source please?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html

Fascinating - thank you!

Note that the policy of protecting local cell phone manufacturers predates the iPhone (according to malenm's reference).

When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?

Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.

I believe that suing everyone under the sun for patent infringement is a public stance on patent laws.

> "When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?"

Ever hear of being the bigger man? Encountering a child is no reason for an adult to act like a child.

>Frankly I just don't get it

Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy.

I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.

> relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy

Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.

>"You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise"

No, I realize it. These strategies are open and replicable. Apple is great at them, but other companies are closing the gap. Supply chain means margins, and those are getting squeezed. Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique.

What they've done with the brand, on the other hand, is remarkable. Apple is a status symbol. You think "fanboyism" occurs only on hacker sites? Go to any forum anywhere and people are vehemently praising the company. It may be my opinion, but it's the most valuable thing they have, and why they protect it at all costs, up to and including disobeying orders and making sure people know that competitors aren't as cool.

> Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique.

Not really at all. The supply chain management allows them to get it to you for a similar price while achieving margins that other companies would kill to have even half of.

What makes apple what it is is the costumers, in essence the "branding strategy". The person holding the iPhone, they could care less about the rest.

The person holding the phone cares about a) the fact that the iPhone was easier to use than any computer before it, and b) the fact that their iPad at launch cost hundreds of dollars less than a similarly capable general purpose computer.

Considering Samsung's undeniable expertise when it comes to the domains you listed, IP and brand strategy are two damn important fronts to fight.

I think Mr. Cook needs to rid Apple of a few more bad ones.

I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.

You're right. Mr Cook has good reason to P45 (British pink slip) the UK legal team for their poor advice, but a fish rots from the head.

But gangrene frequently afflicts extremities. And fish heads are not often replaceable.

Metaphors often (generally?) make poor arguments for why X does Y.

More generally, aphorisms and allegory are specifically created to prove a point. They can never constitute evidence, only persuasion.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese, and all that.

Perhaps a good expression is "A few bad Apple employees^W^Wapples spoil the barrel".

In other words, the decay started by a few will quickly rot an entire batch, if the good and the bad are kept together too long.

Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.

It is a proxy war against Android. For reasons I can not fathom, Android scares Apple. And they lash out against it violently.

Samsung is collateral damage.

Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price.

I'd be worried too.

I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.

Okay? Android's experience has been evolving from day one. iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from).

"Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS.

At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650.

I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???

Huh? Your entire post was dismissing one of the features iOS introduced in the same breath as you talked about Android "outspec[cing]" iPhone. And yet you're claiming I'm trying to focus on specs, but you're trying to focus on "features", as if that's any different and better.

Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them. It seems the goal is to try and overwhelm me with the quantity of "features", even though, were I to actually buy this phone, I wouldn't even use most of the things they hyped.

So please, keep talking about spec lists. Just don't be surprised when not everyone buys into your hype.

Are you a troll? Because all you did was just repeat yourself, nitpick something I didn't even say and ignore everything else.

Go watch the 4.2 announce and note how every feature is about enhancing the experience and adding core features that iOS will probably not seen any, anytime soon.

I mocked "Facebook integration" because it is mockable, that's what you're going to argue is "experience enhacning"? Android had it from it's very first release via Intents.

Again, I didn't even mention spec lists in that last post, you are really desperate to keep trying to attack me with that, aren't you? (Also, did you watch the iPhone 5 keynote, all it is is specs. Are you paying any attention to iOS and Android or are you just repeating stereotypes from 2 years ago?)

>Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them.

Vague. Ambiguous. Completely void of a single example. I can't even think of an acronym in Android that I could use as a feature. Also, what, now you admit that Android has features but you can't be bothered to learn what they are because iOS will never get it? Jesus.

Ah, the old accusation of being a troll merely for disagreeing. Thanks for letting me know I can discount anything you say as you are not trying to argue in good faith.

>Ah, the old accusation of being a troll merely for disagreeing. Thanks for letting me know I can discount anything you say as you are not trying to argue in good faith.

Yes, ignore the other 4 paragraphs and then do the same thing you accused me of in the same sentence. You're a piece of work, have a good afternoon.

"Android's experience has been evolving from day one."

Yep from a blackberry clone to an underperforming iphone clone with some +1 features to a near parity iphone clone with some +1 features.

"iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from)."

This is funny because to me the biggest feature in Android 4.2 that you're so excited about is the AirPlay clone. Over the last few years iOS has fundamentally rebuilt phone calling (Facetime), texting (iMessage) and the primary interaction ux (Siri). Where on earth have you been? How on earth do you call it "basically the same experience" when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?

>the biggest feature in Android 4.2 that you're so excited about is the AirPlay clone.

what are you talking about? I'm very well aware of AirPlay and I'm not aware of a feature (introduced) in 4.2 that is even similar... I certainly have not mentioned any such feature today.

>when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?

Google Now has already leapfrogged it. I just got a card telling me there's traffic to meet up with my friend and a card reminding me my parts are arriving tomorrow in the mail.

I think you're dead wrong to characterize Android as being at "parity" with the iPhone, in fact that's absolutely down right absurd. Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is.

"I'm not aware of a feature (introduced) in 4.2 that is even similar..."

Support for wireless display (Miracast)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history#Android...

It's described almost everywhere as AirPlay-esque functionality.

"Google Now has already leapfrogged it"

You: iOS hasn't changed in forever.

Me: example of radical changes in iOS recently.

You: Google did one of those too!

Instead of moving the goalposts just admit I was right and we can move on. I certainly don't contest the idea that Google has copied anything.

"Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is."

Lists of features =/= parity in device or OS quality. If lists of features are so important why are the headline for every major Android update the claims that it's now lag free and it doesn't look like shit anymore? Seriously go back and look at what the main selling point of Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, ICS and Jellybean have been. The correct answers are performance, both, ui, both and performance. The headline feature isn't ever a feature, it's always "not sucking anymore."

And there's plenty of features that Android doesn't offer -- like regular OS updates to the vast majority of their users or LTE with both battery life and insane thinness. Or a superior media ecosystem around the world. Android devices are only now surpassing the graphics capabilities of chips Apple started shipping in March 2011.

Apple seems to disagree with you since in the past year, all the new products that they have introduced have pretty much been spec upgrades with no innovation (and sometimes, regressions, e.g. maps).

There is actually a lot of innovation in those spec upgrades. The A6 SoC is custom designed and pretty impressive considering it is faster than the competition whilst using less power. And the thinness of the screen (i.e. integration of touch sensors) is definitely innovative.

Then again Apple has always been evolutionary.

Long time reader here.

I created an account just to be able to comment and try to downvote your comment.

What an exquisite example of fanboyism! Calling slimmer (but larger!) phone and a faster processor an innovation...

Apple was doing 3D panoramas in 1993. It really isn't that impressive.

Oh give me a break. Microsoft was doing tablets in 1999. It really isn't that impressive. Hell, that's a better argument because those tablets were actually usable. It's not like Apple had a consumer product at that time that did that.

You do realize I'm talking about taking the panoramas, not just displaying them in Quicktime, right?

Welcome to 2008? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynth

Which is again not consumer based hand-held 360 degree panoramas? And jesus, we're talking about the experience of having it a phone. How far do we have to stretch this to try to discount ONE feature added to 4.2?

If we want to play this game, I remember my dad finding some trial-ware when I was a kid and we took a few photos and were able to stitch them, I had to have been in middle school. yikes, 8-10 years ago, anyway, my point wasn't that it's the first time a real human being has been able to take two photos and stick them together.

It's not? Have you even tried the app? I've been stitching together 360 degree panoramas with it since 2009ish.

They have cross licencing with Microsoft, that's why you won't see them suing the folks at Redmond.

The same reason their last keynote spent an inordinate amount of time talking about specific Android device(s).

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

Because of Android.

The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets).

I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).

What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?