That's because the inverse isn't valid. Not every thief is a great artist. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook apparently didn't consider Android to be great art.
The original quote, to put in context what Jobs was referring to:
“One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.” —Philip Massinger
NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot.
"NB: Jobs mistakenly attributed it to Picasso, who never said such a thing. Jobs probably read Richardson’s biography of Picasso, in which the text is misquoted and attributed to T.S. Eliot."
The quote you have above is in fact T. S. Eliot's words, in reference to Massinger, from his selection "The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism", 1921.
If you re-read the citation, you will see her intention that _neither_ T. S. Eliot nor Picasso specifically said "Good artists borrow, great artists steal" but a "bastardization" of Eliot's original writing.
Eliot's intention, "A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." would discredit every technology company or figure that has been defended by the cliche.
Excellent find, thanks for sharing. It's nice to read the paragraph in its context. From the blog post, I understood that T.S. Eliot quoted Massinger, and that it wasn't his own opinion. Now I see they were Eliot's own words.
"Eliot's intention, "A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." would discredit every technology company or figure that has been defended by the cliche."
I don't believe so. For example: Jony Ive's designs for Apple have been said to be copies of Dieter Rams' vintage designs for Braun. Ive himself has openly acknowledged that he is inspired by Rams, and that he tries to follow Rams' 10 design principles [1]. I believe that, by Eliot's standards, makes him a 'good poet', given that Ive took from a designer remote in time (50 years a go), from a different product category (computers instead of home appliances), and using different materials (aluminum and glass instead of wood and steel).
> What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art.
You'd be totally cool with me stealing the side project you've poured heart and soul into for 5 years, to sell it to an overseas company that floods the market for 1/10 the price?
Given that Jobs credits Picasso with the "great artists steal" quote and Tim Cook making an analogy about "finishing the painting" the whole thing is quite ironic.
I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it."
Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't patent it someone else will. To put it colloquially: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
If you find your arguments relying on catchy phrases like this, you should reexamine them, because they're probably lacking.
I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "player" that your actions help shape how the "game" is played.
In any case, your presentation of Apple's actions is a lot more benign than reality. It's one thing to acquire questionable technology patents to help you defend yourself against litigation. That's unfortunate, but doesn't really actively harm anyone. It's also not what Apple is doing: Apple is using its patent portfolio offensively to try to shut out competing products.
Attempting to inject a little humor does not invalidate an argument. I'm not really attempting to defend Apple; I'm simply saying, "this is the state of affairs and Apple is not the only offender."
We can dislike that excuse all we want; but, why are we faulting for-profit companies for working within the legalities of the system to do what they're supposed to: grow their business and maximize their profits? It's a flawed system, to be sure; but, it's the system we have at the moment.
It's obvious Apple isn't the only offender, but they are a big and, lately, very active one.
I fault them for their actions because I think what they're doing negatively affects a large number of people. It being legal and them being able to make money because of what they're doing doesn't make it okay.
To be clear: I will say the same thing about any company using using frivolous patents to suppress competition. It is a flawed system, and the people in the best position to oppose the system are the people in charge of large tech companies. Apple is not doing the best thing possible within a flawed system, and they are not trying to change the state of affairs. They are using their patent portfolio aggressively to try to suppress competition, and I think that's a problem.
I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed.
But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other.
I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.
See the lack of single-handed (software and hardware) keyboards; many of these were attacked by a patent troll. This has harmed accessibility, and has benefited no-one. A two year patent would have given a good faith actor an advantage when producing and marketing their device, and yet allowed other people to compete in time.
Well, 2 years was just off the cuff. The aim is to allow companies to innovate, and get benefits from that innovation and from disclosing that innovation.
I was ignoring all the paperwork stuff before the device goes to market, so this two years is from product launch. Maybe that's a little bit short.
Another idea is to only allow patent protections for active products. Thus, if you're making and selling a widget you can use patents; but if you made and tried to sell a widget, and failed, you cannot sit on the patent for years and extract money from anyone who comes after you who is selling a different widget that happens to infringe a patent you own.
I don't know - I recognise the need to protect the hard work that people do, and to give them incentives to innovate, and to reward them for releasing those innovations to the public, but the current system is now thoroughly broken.
I also recognise there's considerable bias in the reporting. Maybe there are some small inventors who use patents for what they're meant for.
I would say no: The short patent period will force them to improve on their inventions at a rapid pace to keep ahead of their competition. It might mean a two-year development cycle, but technology will progress rapidly.
That, as opposed to a company sitting on their patent for 20 years, filing a continuation, and letting the market stagnate while everyone else waits for the patents to expire so we can actually make some progress.
You're ignoring the fact that it dramatically raises the risk in the venture. When you only have a limited time to profit the risk that you won't profit skyrockets.
It'd likely affect funding at every level as investors realize quickly the dramatically increased risk. Who wants to invest in a company that will be out-competed in two years?
It would likely drive a lot of players out of those markets, bigger players who naturally move more slowly with their conservative product development cycles.
Not that any of that is explicitly bad, but it's certainly a big change.
That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china.
The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
"has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google"
There's no question that Apple has been more litigious than Google. Google stands pretty much alone these days as one of the tech giants who hasn't been an asshole when it comes to abusing the patent system.
Example: Hadoop is an open source implementation of Google's MapReduce and GFS papers, both technologies are patented by Google and were huge competitive advantages for them in their main business. Did Google go around suing people using Hadoop? No, they granted Apache a liberal blanket patent license to make sure anyone who used Hadoop would be secure in knowing they weren't going to be sued for it.
Up until fairly recently Microsoft was also pretty good with patents but lately they've become schizophrenic (some groups in the company have been doing good things to calm fears of patent suits stemming from Mono, some groups have been shaking down Android licensees for patent fees).
IBM has a long history of patent abuse. Oracle too (though not to the scale of IBM in their prime).
All other companies typically recognize that nobody ever invented anything on their own and the industry would be dead if products were banned because of infringements. So they settle either for royalties or a cross-licensing deal.
Not so with Apple. They want Android smartphones banned from the market.
Exactly, it's not so much the suits themselves as the goal they're pursuing. To extend the OP's metaphor, it's not enough to "hate the game" when one player is trying to change the rules. (To be clear, though, the game is indeed a terrible thing.)
"because if they don't patent it someone else will"
AFAIK it won't be worth the stamps if there is some prior art. I.e. once release nobody can patent it. The above statement is false. They patented it to hinder competition.
Note: I'm not against patents (for significant inventions) per se.
You know, I actually think it would be better if the patent was upheld. Imagine the fiasco it would create. It would put the spotlight on the absurdity and abuses of the patent system when applied to technology. Might even get non-technical folks interested.
Ultimately I think the solution is going to be one of the ones Judge Posner outlined in his editorial, but it might take a big shakeup like this to turn patents into the issue-of-the-moment for the populace and get something done (you know, in the usual rushed, nobody-read-this-legislation way).
Especially if the patent were found to be invalid elsewhere, and Android gets banned only in the US. That would cause people outside our industry to stop and think.
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't get that far - they could demand a $20 or $30 royalty instead, so consumers won't be directly confronted with the insanity; Android phones would just start being closer in price to iPhones.
Well, the Galaxy Nexus was (temporarily) banned only in the US. That ban got people to stop and think, but few of those people noticed that the ban didn't mean anything for the rest of the world.
I find myself hoping for an acceleration of the patent insanity. At some point, the absurdity of software patents will come to light and we'll all be able to move on with things.
Until then, it's a painful, expensive process.
So, yes indeed, bring on the reductio ad absurdum.
Except that designers then tread in fear of violating patents and produce much cut down versions, harming the consumer.
I once worked in a place that designed a CPAP pump, which is essentially an air pump with a humidifier. It has a removable water tank with a heating plate for humidifying the air. We had to use a removable plate to expose the tank instead of a door - because our main competitor had patented a hinged flap to access the water tank!
Regardless of how obvious prior art is, it's cheaper to make minor design changes than to spend years in litigation. Even though it's worse for the consumer, you have to avoid anything patented unless you have the ready cash that Apple has lying around.
I'm curious what happens if you're wrong though. Suppose they successfully push on this and android devices are taken off the market, or priced so high to cover licensing fees that people won't buy them.
What recourse does Google have? Presumably they can't sue the patent office for granting ridiculous patents that ultimately drive them out of business.
Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed?
Then Apple will simply license the tech, the patent holder will be happy, and life will go on. This is what they did for Xerox's GUI tech that got integrated into the Macintosh; it's what they did for that digital noise filter in the A5 chip, it's what they'll do if anyone tries to sue. Alternately, they could make a hostile takeover bid for Samsung. Think they won't? :)
For Apple, it isn't about the money, though. Stealing Apple tech is an assault on their prestige, so they are unlikely to negotiate licensing terms with Android handset makers, and those handset makers are doomed in this market.
There are a couple of things you're not considering. First, the patent-holder could easily (and almost certainly will within the next few years) be Google/Samsung/HTC/... in which case they're not going to let Apple "simply license the tech". Second, if a patent holder gets traction in an attack on Apple, what is their most lucrative option? Hint: It isn't letting Apple negotiate a license.
>> For Apple, it isn't about the money, though. Stealing Apple tech is an assault on their prestige, so they are unlikely to negotiate licensing terms with Android handset makers, and those handset makers are doomed in this market.
Never saw such a low quality analysis on HN, lately. For Motorola too then maybe it isnt about money, really?
Most of the patents they've granted look to my highly un-patent-lawyer-like eyes like things I had on phones 5 years before Apple jumped into the fray. I'm not really sweating it too much.
Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art.
You're right, the two examples I chose to highlight aren't multi-touch. If you watch the video linked, you'll see a ton of examples that are, and you'll see Steve talking about how proud they are to have invented it and patented it.
You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.
> You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.
I would disagree: RDF.
Not to mention whether a group of Apple journalists and enthusiasts have seen something before isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art.
The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release.
Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff) and the claims (which describe what is protected). Here is what this patent is actually about:
1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display: displaying a portion of an electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document; displaying a vertical bar on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document, the vertical bar displayed proximate to a vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein: the vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar; detecting a movement of an object in a direction on the displayed portion of the electronic document; in response to detecting the movement: scrolling the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in the direction of movement of the object so that a new portion of the electronic document is displayed, moving the vertical bar to a new vertical position such that the new vertical position corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed new portion of the electronic document, and maintaining the vertical bar proximate to the vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and in response to a predetermined condition being met, ceasing to display the vertical bar while continuing to display the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical extent that is less than a vertical extent of the electronic document.
Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
If I were Google, though, I wouldn't care about this patent. Why not? Because of the words "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
I am annoyed by patents as much as the next guy - more, even, because I deal with them every day - but this kind of breathlessness helps absolutely no one.
IANAL, but I believe that prior art can still kill a patent. The patented stuff is still supposed to be the inventor's original work. (The patent office may not be terribly diligent about searching for prior art, and establishing prior art can still be a massively expensive pain in the ass... but that's another rant.)
What first-to-file certainly did change is what happens when two claimants try to file a patent on something that wasn't prior art. It used to be that the patent office looked through the inventors' records to try to establish who was the first to invent the non-public technology; now, it's just the one who was first with the patent office paperwork.
First-to-file != prior art. It just means if there is a dispute between two parties A and B, A invented the technique first but B filed it first, the law now states that B owns the patent.
This does not mean that I can now go and claim that using electricity to create logical meaning thus creating a computing machine is patentable (even if nobody patented it before)
> Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
Or, anyone who has used the default Nokia S60 browser (such as on the E7x series devices).
Today a lot of mainstream media published articles along the same line on how Apple's new patents will kill competition; which makes me think, they do it to push the aapl share price higher in the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.
“the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.”
Apple fourth fiscal quarter of 2012 started in the last week of June and will conclude in the last week of September.
WWDC usually falls in FQ3, one month a go Apple released new notebooks during the event. That was good timing, it means Apple will be able to keep up with demand when the Back to School crowd starts shopping.
Mountain Lion will be released within the next two weeks, which will also boost Mac sales.
The next hardware announcement will be no earlier than September (new iPhone), but that will probably still be in FQ4.
They do it because hyperventilating articles get clicks. Just look at this submission -- how many of us clicked it just to see what astonishing, competition-destroying patent Apple was granted?
Oh, a scrollbar that disappears. Okay...
Of course they piss away credibility doing that, but credibility seems to hold little value these days.
> "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
Interesting to note that on OS/X Lion, the indicator DOES function as a scrollbar. And when it doesn't on IOS, it bugs me (try flicking through a very long document with the non-grabable indicator on iOS). Sounds like Apple has been granted a patent for a less-usable variant of an existing technology.
Also of note is that most disappearing scroll indicators in Android are scroll bars; if you can drag on the indicator before it disappears, you can use it to quickly scroll large distances in a big document or list.
FFS I was hoping VanL's comment was here. The article starts of with a "the world is fucking burning, motherfucker, build your nuklear shelter in the woods! NOW!"
Honestly, is this patent any different than shit we've seen over the last 5 years from many different companies?
Oh boy, more litigation, more fees, etc, etc. I just want google to get pissed enough to start suing for map-reduce.
Now having said all that "and the vertical bar does not act as a scroll bar" -- that is a obvious improvement, you cannot claim that it took years of research to figure this shit out. This will not hold up in court. It will, however, cost lots of $$$$.
Personally I wouldn't have used that sentence at all. If I needed something along those lines, I would have written "Steve Jobs' longtime wish may finally come true ... to see Android devices taken off the market."
Just the wording "get" and "see" imply that he could still receive these benefits.
I guess that would depend on your interpretation of the afterlife. There are plenty of people in the world who believe that he is still here, just on a different plane of existence...
I don't want to get into a spiritual discussion, but I would seriously hope an afterlife would have more interesting things to do that watch your previous world continue on without you.
Hoorah for us all, even less viable products for us to choose from! I don't understand why people look up to Jobs, but still hate Bill Gates for his business practices during the 90's.
"Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs
Well, that seals it. My next Tablet will be based on 100% open sources. I will now proceed to build an Ubuntu-based tablet to replace the iPad form-factor.. boots up laser cutter and 3d printer .. </dream>
So, my question is: given all the controversy in the (tech) media over patents lately, how is the patent office able to rationalize granting (what appears to me to be) a very bad patent?
There is no rational thinking at all going on at the patent office. They reject your initial application a few times to make sure you're good and rich and then grant it figuring the courts will work it out.
USPTO: "The mission of the patent business area is to help our customers get patents; its performance goal is to grant patents to inventors for their discoveries. "
I think it is significant that the mission is not "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by [whatever]" It is simply to "help our customers get patents."
To be fair, the 2011 annual report says the mission is:
"Fostering innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically and abroad to deliver high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide, with a highly skilled, diverse workforce."
http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/2011/mda_01.html
the patent office doesn't give a fuck. as long as you pay the filing fee and fill out all the right checkboxes in the right color ink, the mindless drone in the cubicle will rubber-stamp it.
I honestly believe that this is the beginning of the end for the patent system. If this was granted and enforced we would see something along the lines of the advertising mantra: "good advertising the the fastest way to kill a bad product"
Competition is what drives companies to create better products. Without that there would be very little progress in innovation. I am an Apple fanboy and still hope nothing happens to Android.
Ridiculous headline (the submission simply mirroring the original article) that is the sort of hysterical end-of-times interpretation of patents that has yielded so many nonsensical, time-wasting discussions before.
What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art.
The iPhone is awesome. May a thousand devices like it bloom.