Couldn't agree more, my family has had macs for probably about 8-10 years. I was going to buy an iphone in December when my 2-year contract finished, but I almost certainly will not. Simply because I do not want to support such utter bullshit.
I recently swapped out my iPhone 4S for a Galaxy S3 and I was a bit apprehensive given my pretty mixed impressions of Android from a few years ago.
But really I prefer the S3 in almost every way now and wonder why I put up with the limitations of the iPhone for so long. If you do switch I think you'll be happy.
The 4S does feel a little more solid than the S3 too, but I'm happy not to have the extra weight in my pocket.
I've also seen a lot of iPhones with big cracks in the glass in the back and I'm happy I can just swap out the plastic back of the S3 with a cheap replacement if necessary.
I've seen 3GS practically shatter from a drop of 3ft. I've seen S2 flying all across the room on the concrete floor and not a scratch.
I'm not trying to draw statistics here, it's just my experience that iPhones are more resistant to wear and tear, and Samsungs more resistant to somewhat more extreme shocks.
My contract with Verizon is ending in October. I was strongly considering getting an iphone for the first time when that happened. Now I think I'll just get an S3.
I'm certainly disappointed in Apple's use of the patent system here, but we need to fix the patent system as a whole. Apple wouldn't have acted this way unless our patent system created the opportunity and the incentive. And if it wasn't Apple, it would have been someone else sooner or later.
So you can be mad at Apple if you want, but what's really messed up is a patent system that makes this behavior profitable.
I don't follow this logic. "I'm certainly disappointed in the pervert's use of the open curtains here, but we need to fix open curtains as a whole." Apple are still responsible for the ethics of their actions, regardless of the legality of those actions.
Our legal system has no room for ethics. If the rules of the game make it profitable to be evil, companies will probably be evil. They might not be, but it'll be an uphill battle. If we redesign the rules so that being evil is not profitable, that will make it a whole lot easier on everyone.
Of course, actually doing so won't be easy, because the status quo benefits most influential players...
I don't think he's saying it's ok. He's saying that in spite of Apple being unethical the present condition is an inevitability. We can try to shame Apple into doing the right thing but it won't fix the real problem.
I'm absolutely mad at both. Apple wouldn't be using the patent system as a cudgel if it couldn't be used in that way.
Patent reform should be the top priority in the tech industry, but they're all too busy using it to batter each other to death. Apple's just the latest and highest-profile aggressor.
What I'd love to see, in place of this fiasco, is a tech summit, led by companies like Google, Samsung, and Apple, to thrash out a proposal for reform. Put all those high-profile, high-paid lawyers to good use.
The patent system is not like the trademark system. Apple chose to act this way, they were in no way coerced by the system.
The patent system is nevertheless still broken of course. Very incredibly broken. However that does not, to any extent, reduce the new lack of respect I have for Apple.
Apple created something new. Samsung had it blocked from South Korea for two years so that they could clone it. Samsung freeloaded on Apple's innovation -- Apple barely had first mover advantage.
I'm not a huge fan of patents either but what can we do when countries like South Korea break every free trade agreement they make? Our politicians are only looking at the short-term election horizon and don't bother to call South Korea out on their BS.
It's too late. I don't think people angry at the patent suits pulling out is going to make any difference to Apple at this juncture. They know developers are disposable. Not to mention that a significant percentage of their fanbase is cheering them on.
Well, yeah, I don't think that my not purchasing Apple products is going to do anything to their bottom line. But it'll make me feel a little better about the things I buy.
There is an army of developers paying $99/year (and Apple hardware) and spending time on apps that may be rejected or suspended at any time in the appstore.
Absolutely the last straw for me here. I've changed the price of all my apps to $999 and edited their descriptions to inform potential buyers that I'm pulling my apps in protest of Apple's policies.
If the Apple gestapo doesn't yank my apps for me for this I'll pull them completely from the store myself as long as I've posted any updates for my existing customers required for iOS 6.
Fun discovery made in the process: Apple won't allow you to use the word "Android" in the app description.
The tool they're using to deliver the punch sucks (software patents).
But I'm honestly baffled that HN doesn't emotionally understand Apple (maybe: Steve Jobs). Samsung has ripped off Apple wherever it could while being one of Apple's trusted suppliers, to the point where the SGS2 was considered THE iPhone contender. (Mostly anecdotal, though see [1].) Now Apple is throwing whatever they have at Samsung, this happens to include software patents.
There seems to be an odd mix of sentiment being expressed here in this discussion. On one hand some are suggesting that expecting ethics from a corporation is foolish, but on the other hand you are attributing their actions to an emotional response.
Surely if the AAPL corporation is capable of experiencing emotion, it is capable of acting in an ethical manner instead of just a profit-seeking manner.
> On one hand some are suggesting that expecting ethics from a corporation is foolish, but on the other hand you are attributing their actions to an emotional response.
Different people saying different things is not new :) But this wouldn't be a contradiction if we were the same person either. Someone without ethics can very well react emotionally. I'm only speculating about the emotions at play - which I think do exist - I have no interest in judging ethics this time.
I hope the people that have been dismissing Apple's recent win as a deserved and minor comeuppance for Samsung will at last see the light after this latest round of developments. Apple is clearly out to destroy Android, not just Samsung, and even a child can see that the S3 and the Note are not clones of anything Apple's made but instead products filling a demand Apple has refused to meet.
More detailed info would be helpful. What infringement is Apple alleging in this case? For the S III, they have to rely more and more on bogus software patents since it is very different from an iPhone. Their fear is very visible.
If that were the case then they SHOULDN'T be doing this... they're just inciting further reaction. Mutally Assured Destruction (MAD) is quite literal, in this case.
Because all software patents shouldn't be granted?
Because you have studied them deeply, fully understand their claims and believe there is prior art or no inventive step (the current requirement for the inventive step seem very low, do you think that this is not being met or you believe the standard should be higher)?
The patents have now withstood not only the flawed patent office examination but have been tested in court. The presumption should now be that they are valid and not bogus unless you provide justification or at least explanation of your view.
Samsung/Google should also presume validity and develop a workaround while the case is pending to strengthen their negotiating position and remove risk of a ban. This doesn't mean that they have to stop fighting legally.
Edit: A reply suggests I may have been wrong to believe that these are the patents that were tested in court. If I was wrong the advice would probably be to plan potential workarounds but not carry them out.
"Data detectors" looks completely ridiculous to everyone who has programmed for more than a year. I would be shocked if this stands, although I have heard that HTC modified their skin because of it.
"Unified search" is the classic "X + on a phone" patent, where X is something that has been done for decades. I hope this is challenged and closely examined. I would not be surprised if there is prior art even for phones.
"Word completion" is very obvious too, they have included details of their implementation in the claims so it will be easy to workaround.
But why would Apple sue over these patents? The best they can get are slight modifications to the software, which will not alter the experience or the look and feel much. Meanwhile they are losing goodwill and making people aware that there are better alternatives out there. All this because the former CEO felt slighted? As a stockholder I would be a little mad.
Thanks, that is a much more informative comment than your original.
UK law is different to US law (apart from anything in the US a priority date at the time of invention rather than filing could be claimed) so it is quite possible one patent is valid and the other isn't.
I've looked at 'Data Detectors' very briefly and I think that you may be right. Looking just at the claims it appears to cover just about any data processing system which would obviously have massive prior art. I assume Apple are trying to say it should be interpreted more narrowly to avoid prior art but throwing it out would probably be the best result.
I haven't looked at the other two and you may be right although only the claims really matter rather than the example implementation details.
Apart from the troubling 'Data Detectors' patent I agree that there should be easy workarounds. The best justification for pressing these cases I can see is that they are trying to create and ensure some differences with Android even though they are fairly minor. It is quite arguable that this is a completely proper use of patents although whether it is worth the effort I don't know.
Yeah but the average person I'm sure doesn't follow tech news as carefully as you or me - and doesn't get worked up about this sort of stuff either. Any damage to Apple's reputation will be negligible, wouldn't you think?
Customers will become aware of this more and more, and Apple's trials are further helping it. It is a slow process, but it happens. Microsoft also seemed invincible once but they lost the goodwill of developers and customers over the years.
I don't think this is the awareness that Apple's competitors want. What Joe SixPack heard this week in the news is that Samsung got its ass kicked by Apple for copying. J6P doesn't understand prior art, voir dire, trade dress, etc. They just know that Samsung is currently on the hook for $1 billion. This makes Samsung look bad, and Apple look good.
Thinking that even 1% of the populace understands patent law, much less how the US legal system functions is going to leave you disappointed. No matter how Samsung tries to spin this, no matter how many articles appear on Groklaw or HN, this is a bad PR scene for Samsung.
If Asian companies can just clone our products and block our products from sale in their countries, there will be fewer jobs for Americans, Europeans and Australians.
Ah yes, when in doubt, fall back on good old xenophobia. It was only a matter of time really, you can always count on somebody dredging up xenophobia if there are not rational arguments to be made.
What do you classify as 'xenophobia'? How can I avoid falling victim to it? How can I make my arguments more rational in future?
For what it's worth, I have lived in Asia for several years, speak three languages, and my opinions are influenced by the Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang, so I'm trying my best.
I find the worst part about this whole war is that in the end it's purely about money and nothing else. So now, because some dickheads want more of it while they already have enough, people are denied access to what seems a pretty decent device.
I found it funny when the jury foreman said "we only wanted to award a reasonable amount of damages". One billion dollars for rounded corners? I wonder if one billion dollars would have seemed like a reasonable amount of money before the financial crisis with it's monster bailouts.
If you took the time to actually read the verdict, you'd see that claim was dismissed. Also, it's not a patent on rounded corners, it's a design patent, which is essentially a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item that pretty much every other manufacture has managed not to plagiarise. And what the hell has the "financial crisis" got to do with this? Is suppose that's the jury's fault too now?
I'd suggest that the figure became a reasonable amount when both litigant started turning over several multiples of that figure per quarter. It's the effect of general inflatin on economies.
This is getting ridiculous. It would be one thing if they went after TouchWiz, because I'd actually like Samsung give up on it, but going after them with these patents? I can't see how this is helping innovation at all. It's simply about blocking the competition from the market, plain and simple.
So this is the same case being tried in front of Judge Koh?
I'm not sure what patents in particular they say are being infringed here, but it can't be the trade dress stuff -- Samsung's stuff have moved away from being obvious ripoffs of Apple's products and the Galaxy SIII looks no more like an iPhone than any other smartphone from any other manufacturer.
If it's the pinch-to-zoom and bounce-back patents (etc) then it shouldn't be hard for Samsung to issue an update to workaround those patents.
In fact, I mentioned in another comment[1] but I'm pretty sure Android (not sure about Samsung's modified version of Android) doesn't infringe on the pinch-to-zoom patent anyway, because Android allows scrolling with two fingers. Obviously, I'm no patent expert, though...
At this point, I hope that Samsung will be able to obtain bans for the future Apple LTE products, at least in Europe. MAYBE this way Apple will stop being the bully it is.
Let us remember that Samsung have the South Korean government in their pocket, and they already acted to stop the iPhone from being sold for two years in South Korea when it was released, to give Samsung a chance to catch up and make more money from the domestic (South Korean) market.
Will Samsung stop trying to bully companies into paying patent licenses twice or changing licensing term because a competitor is legitimately using encumbered parts?
The four new patents Apple is leveraging against Samsung include the '647 "Data Detectors" patent, the '721 "Slide-to-unlock" property, the '172 "Word completion" invention and the '604 "Universal search" patent.
Just broad nonsensical software patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
I hope Samsung fights this as I think they have a much better chance in winning even a jury trial against these, I mean why hasn't anyone invalidated these patents yet?!
P.S.
I'm not clear as to when Apple is hoping to ban these devices, at the December hearing? earlier? next year? I would appreciate a clarification.
It's hard to imagine Samsung winning a jury trial in California against Apple. Trying patents before a local jury should be against WTO rules. It's a form of protectionism in my view.
Apple created something new. Samsung had it blocked from South Korea for two years so that they could clone it and try to corner the domestic (South Korean) market.
I'm not a huge fan of patents either but what can we do when countries like South Korea break every free trade agreement they make? Our politicians are only looking at the short-term election horizon and don't bother to call South Korea out on their BS.
If their lawyers learned their lesson and in future will screen the jury for those with an agenda and don't give a damn about prior art, I believe they'll do better.
I don't know, but seeing as they don't have a choice about the venue (maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) they ought to focus on other factors and biases.
Slide to unlock doesn't seem broad to me. It seems easy to workaround by requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or requiring a pattern of taps.
There may be prior art as another poster claims, I haven't studied it but it doesn't look too broad to me.
There is quite a bit of detail specified (e.g. continuous movement of the image along the path) and it wasn't the approach taken by Ericsson, Palm or Microsoft in their previous touch devices so it isn't clear to me that it is obvious (at least in the detail).
To me it is better to have narrow specific patents even if they aren't completely revolutionary than massively broad ones claiming whole areas of technology.
Again - I haven't studied the prior art either listed in the patent or suggested by others so that may rule it out but as a concept and as patents go it seems like quite a reasonable one.
That isn't to say I don't think the patent system needs major reform and may generally be doing more harm than good but this specific patent seems to me to be the wrong example to pick as an example of what is wrong with the system.
Desktop computers have had the concept of moving your mouse to "wake up" a sleeping computer for years. How much of a leap is it translate that to moving your finger to unlock a phone?
Does the mouse have to move over a specific part of the screen? Does it move an image as it moves to wake it up? From a quick glance at the patent these seem to be essential parts and are the non-trivial parts of the patent that make it easier to work around and a more reasonable patent than is suggested by many commentators.
Again I'm not saying that slide to unlock is definitely valid as there may be prior art but I really find the arguments based on a straw man of what the patent is to be really unhelpful to the discussion.
It's unlocked with a left to right swipe. Contrary to the iPhone there is no image moving with the finger. I don't think that difference is worth a patent. Moving things (i.e. images) around with the finger is a pretty obvious concept for a purely touch-based device. See for example the Microsoft Surface (now renamed to PixelSense) from 2008:
Looked at the first video and for me it wouldn't count as prior art because it doesn't include the image showing the path or an object being dragged along. If I was on a jury I would say that the Neonode wasn't prior art for this patent.
To be clear though this is based on an understanding of the patent covering only swipe to unlock with an image and a dragged object.
Haven't looked at the MS video but are you sure 2008 is early enough for prior art for this patent in the US where the first to invent rather than first to file priority was in place at that time?
There may also be other prior art but this alone doesn't convince me that this should be invalidated.
Thanks for having a look! I guess I was not clear... The point of the first video was to show that the moving image is the only thing missing from the Neonode prior art.
The point of the second video was to show that moving an image on a touch screen with a finger was known to the industry before the iPhone was introduced[1].
This means that Apple's slide to unlock is nothing more than the combination of two known concepts: swipe to unlock and moving an image with the finger. Certainly not worthy of a patent in my opinion.
[1] Linking to the MS video was a mistake of mine, since the device was actually introduced after the iPhone. But please, do have a look at this wonderful summary of the history of multi-touch technology (especially the list of devices in the second half of the page): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsR...
Have you seen the Galaxy S3 lockscreen? There is not an image that moves. They had to remove the visual feedback which is an obvious addition to Nenode's slide to unlock. But apparently it is still not enough for Apple.
No, I haven't seen it and in that case (based on your description and my very quick reading of the claims) I would hope and expect it to be found not to infringe. That is a separate issue from whether it is valid (except that both should be judged under the same understanding of the claims - narrow or broad).
Swipe-image-of-a-knob-to-unlock repicates exactly on a display what has long been a moderately common physical widget on mobile phones, mp3 players, portable consoles etc.: a sliding `Lock' or `Hold' button. User sled a finger over a dedicated area of chassis -- where the physical button is located; the button followed the finger; upon reaching end of travel it unlocked or locked the device.
It's a stellar example of `the same as before, but on a mobile device' type of patent, that doesn't really cover innovation.
There is an invention waiting happen here: doing away with the image following finger and replacing it with some other kind of feedback. After all, on a display we are no longer constrained -- neither by costs nor by technology -- to a simple sliding button.
Your trust in humanity is admirable if you think that everyone is emotionally capable of telling the two apart ;-)
Also, the problem is that upvoting is accepted as an expression of agreement. So it's a bit counter intuitive to reject downvoting as a form of disagreement.
I for one have decided to never downvote under any circumstances. Downvoting can be unnecessarily humiliating, even thuggish when posts become almost invisible. Using words should do the trick, even in cases of really bad behavior.
Samsung doesn't implement the slide to unlock action on a predetermined path. On 2012 phones, it's just swipe anywhere along any direction for a certain distance. IIRC, onn the 2011 phones it was slide the lockscreen wallpaper in any direction.
In that case from my quick glance at the patent it already may not be infringing. If the wallpaper moves with the drag I would need to look at the claims carefully again.
I was not trying to give a total judgement on the case but argue against the claim that all the patents were ridiculously broad (admittedly the data detectors one looks very broad to me although if read in the broad way MUST have prior art).
The important point is that Apple should be able to patent slide to unlock - it's preposterous. In fact, noone should be able to paint such trivialities.
I don't see the problem with patenting trivialities (compared to many things) as they are easy to avoid/workaround. They still have to be novel but they don't cause such a massive problem as broad patents, standard essential patents or defacto standard essential patents (e.g. Microsoft's FAT patents).
It is clear that at least at the time of grant that it wasn't the only obvious way to unlock a touchscreen - it wasn't used by MS/Palm/Ericsson. Prior art from others may apply but the fact that many weren't doing this indicates that it wasn't completely obvious.
There are many problems with patents but these sort of patents come about 10th on the list of problem areas if they are a problem area at all. I just can't get worked up at all about it. There are many better examples illustrating need for patent reform.
The scope is highly limited and no one needs to practice them at all. There are still issues of accidental infringement and the high costs of defending actions particularly in the US. However you could just wait until challenged on issues of this type and then workaround removing the incentive to prosecute an action against SME's.
To take your analagy it is more like the rough surface of a newly paved road than potholes.
No, she didn't. She had a bolt. The mechanism and implementation is significantly different, unless she had a 100 year old capacitive screen attached to the door in order to operate the bolt.
Several European courts threw out the slide to unlock patent, as there was prior art with a Neonode phone. Judge Posner, with whom Apple tried to argue that a tap is a zero length swipe, and Judge Koh were skeptical of the validity of the slide to unlock patent.
Faulty patent system IS NOT an excuse for Apple. Aftern Jobs died - real company face has revealed, not even worth to spit at. My iPhone is last device from this manufacturer, Samsung is so much superior, they also act like humans.
Let me gladly say "thank goodness for Apple - they force everyone to lift their game". Look at Apple's warranty - it's very good (eg. a "new for old" device swap for AU $180 when the device is out of warranty - even if you destroyed it yourself).
Do not heap too much praise on Samsung - they have a very chequered history.
Do not let Apple's reprehensible behaviour in this instance undermine the value that Apple has added in other ways. I would still consider buying an iPhone - and I recognise Apple for their unique talent in high polish of a product.
I just want fair competition - I'd love Apple to think and act the same way.
Samsung is considered one of the most corrupt companies in Korea. Google "samsung corruption" for enlightenment.
And thinking that this isn't exactly what Steve Jobs wanted to do had he lived is ignoring his explicit statements on the subject.
All of this garment rending and teeth gnashing seems to be due to people getting far too emotionally invested in the companies involved. Apple is just a company, its products won't fill the hole in your life. Samsung too is just a company, not some Quixote tilting at windmills.
I don't think I'll buy anything from them ever again.