Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly:
> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with.
That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.
Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.
You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.
Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.
If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.
I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so.
I also love how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or iPhone like - it doesn't matter.
I feel it important that the tech community discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman. Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are.
Also, I advise you to pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love.
My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that harms society, I will take offense to.
Before you shoot me down for being anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3, iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition, and in effect, harm society.
> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition
Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?
I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to innovate -- not copy.
The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a license!"
> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
I'd be willing to bet good money the the reason that Apple licensed iOS UI patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach, which they have used successfully against Android.
Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.
If anything, this is evidence that Apple is not trying to squelch competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't slavishly copying Apple's design.
I also love how "people" talk about Palm phones even though they've clearly never actually used or seen one. Because if you there is no way you would make a comparison between them and the iPhone. They are world's apart.
Also no offense but you might want to cut down on the hyperbole. Society is not going to be harmed by companies like Samsung having to find other ways to style their phone or design their UIs.
> They are world's apart .. you might want to cut down on the hyperbole.
Rustynails backed his comment with evidence and reasoning, while your reasoning is backed by.. hyperbole.
You seem like the type who would defend patents over for-loops because - Hey, it wasn't obvious to you. How about you come up with an objective test to determine if something is "obvious", and maybe the rest of us will take you seriously. Until then, please, lay more hyperbole on us.
Just because people didn't like something doesn't make it "non obvious".
It's not like the iPhone was the first phone with a software keyboard, I remember people using the XDA years before that. In many ways the iPad essentially is a "giant iPod" , just turns out there was a market for a giant iPod.
Edit:
Actually now I think about it I remember a conversation I had with a friend who is a big Apple fan at around the time that the iPhone/iPod touch came out. Something like this:
"Hey, this iPod touch is cool. Now you can watch movies on the go!"
"Yea, but the screen is kinda small, I don't want to watch a movie on a 4" screen. If they brought out a bigger version of this that I could stuff in my briefcase I might be interested."
"Don't be ridiculous, nobody would want to buy that!"
I also remember him trying to explain to me how GPRS/Edge was superior to 3G..
...and yet, somewhere inside Apple, there's a prototype of the next iPad. And it looks different. Maybe completely different.
Lightbulbs look different than when I was a kid. Oxo re-invented the look and feel of measuring spoons. Objects as mundane as doorknobs have so changed their design over the years that vintage models can be sold for a premium.
It's practically a truism that after the next device comes out -- no matter how simple the device -- there will be people claiming that it's design is "obviously" the only way to do it. I've stopped listening to those people, because they're almost never correct.
What was their idea exactly? Be the first to adopt working capacitive touch technology for a phone, and implement absolutely obvious and natural user interface for it? Really? Idea?
To me their success lies in timely choice of technologies to use and good implementation. Not in unobvious ideas.
The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?
> 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?
Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"?
Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation".
Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing better than your competition is already its own reward.
"Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'"
I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!"
Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins.
As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk, please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007, you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to post hoc rationalize the fact that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it "innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there, and I remember the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution screen. I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music.
Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market, and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to win.
1. Big companies should be less well protected, or there may be a monopoly. Intel is innovative, but it has to tolerate AMD using its instruction set. Big companies is much more dangerous than small ones, you don't want them to dominate your life.
2. Apple may be innovative, but it should try and be more innovative. The patent system is to encourage people to innovate more, by protecting their innovation. The protection is the means, not the ends. If Apple cannot innovate any more, why protect it? It's not like Apple will die tomorrow if not protected.
I'm really tired of people calling Apple an innovative company. Apple is a company that polishes existing ideas to a point beyond most other companies, and they are damn good at this. Apple is also routinely rewarded for their skills by being the first to introduce a product in category X that is truly enjoyable to use. Is that not good enough?
As I understand it, the patent system was designed to protect individual inventors and researchers from companies like Apple, who excel at mass-production and marketing. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
You are wrong. What Apple does is rare and difficult and it takes courage, skill and taste. What Apple does lift the society and makes the world better, and the intellectual property system should protect this kind of enterprise. The patent system is grossly outdated and sometimes very wrong I'll admit, at the same time a company like Apple has to use something to legally protect themselves from being blatantly imitated, unfortunately now Apple can only go to war wielding patents. But as a Chinese seeing the cesspool that is Chinese tech industry, I strongly oppose letting mafia companies such as Samsung (or a Chinese example, Huawei) reign freely. That would be a lost for us all.
Patent system is meant as an incentive for innovators. There is a need to clearly define and enforce:
1. What is patentable
2. What is the level of protection that a patent holder gets
3. What are the terms and obligations regarding patent licencing.
In the absense of a suitable patent system, innovator's incentive will come down. Will it hurt the consumers by limiting disruptive innovation? If it does then it makes sense to see how the existing system needs to be made better. If not, let us not differentiate between software, pharma, hardware or whatever - because innovation in any form requires tremendous leaps of faith and pioneering efforts from inventors and should be protected by similar terms and instruments.
Patents are not the only way to incentive innovation. You know what's a great way to incentive innovation yourself? Became an angel investor, those guys are investing in innovation and pushing progress forward many orders of magnitude better than intellectual property is. Don't have enough money? Join an angel group, or fund a kickstarter project. I don't know about the us, but many.countries have programs to inventive innovative startups with funding, incubation and mentorship.
Bottomline is, there are.still means to inventive innovation without granting monopolies. If intellectual property magically ceased to exist, men would still invent awesome stuff. You can have my word on that.
I wish Microsoft would be castigated for their aggressive use of mostly BS patents as well. Apple wins a one time only $1 billion payment, but Microsoft is getting to the point where they might get $1 billion from the companies using Android every 2 years or even every year if Android keeps getting even more successful. Is that right? Would it seem right if Microsoft did this to companies using Linux? They are even going after companies using ChromeOS.
Why isn't there a bigger outrage towards them? Is it because they take the money in small bites compared to Apple? Is that how they get under the radar? They are making Android cost almost as much as their full phone OS license, thanks to a bunch of patents. That's not right.
I hereby castigate Microsoft. Are you happy? MS is evil, but they are broadly happy to be a parasite. They aren't trying to keep their competitor's products out of the market entirely. Other companies, like Nokia, are behaving similarly. And it's hurtful and wrong.
But sorry, it's objectively not as hurtful, nor wrong, as what Apple is doing right now with their shotgun suits, refusal to license at reasonable cost, and demands for import bans.
The fact that Apple is at the top of a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.
So obviously that list will include Google right ?
Because Google/Motorola was refusing to license at reasonable cost H.264 patents to Microsoft despite them being required under FRAND obligations to do so.
Sigh, why must we go in circles on this? Yes, they're on that list too. There's plenty of bad faith to go around. But yet I still see X-Boxes in the stores. Again, that's parasitism -- Motorola/Google want a cut of the revenue, they aren't trying to kill the product. Parasites have no interest in killing their hosts. Apple wants Samsung (and Android) dead. That is worse.
Their license strategy is pretty different from Apple though. They go to OEMs and shake them down for a small licensing deal clouded in other deals and agreements, and also promises to make or keep making Windows Phones etc. Their goal is never court cases except in cases like BN (which they quickly settled later). The strategy is to build up precedents and take small amounts instead of full blown lawsuits requesting $30/device. Looks like the deals are okay with the OEMs, that's why there haven't been high profile lawsuits except with B&N.
Do you seriously think Apple will go away with the one billion payment? Aren't they trying for injunctions on imports etc. along with ongoing licesing fees?
Just today they added Galaxy S3 and Note etc. to a lawsuit. And that's just with Samsung. There are pending lawsuits against Motorola and HTC.
Perhaps PG can just pin a "Apple vs. Android" discussion to the top of HN so we don't have 20 articles every few hours on the front page regurgitating almost the exact same set of ~20 comment and counterargument types? Am I the only one getting super tired of this?
Sure, that point is brought up every time too. It's not new, insightful, or interesting at this point, it's been discussed to death and repeated hundreds of times. It also doesn't prevent the media outlets from writing these hollow armchair-lawyering Apple vs. whatever stories to gain click-throughs, and it doesn't make it any less boring to see them submitted on HN every hour.
Obviously there are still many who don't get it, even here. Until everyone understands what the problem is, it's still worth repeating. We can only declare beating on a dead horse, when the horse is dead. This one is not only alive, but getting stronger. We have a long long way to kill it.
Sorry but the author attribues the deficiencies of the patent system to Apple. If not Apple someone else would have done it. I would also contest the competition argumen by saying that lesser clones in the market make for better competition. The way I see it, I am happy that there will be lesser clones and more original stuff for me to choose from purely from a consumer POV.
You really see this as a "plus" from a consumer POV? Things like pinch to zoom and auto-hyperlinks have no place in patents. It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents. Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development? The patent process has effectively made it impossible to create a mobile phone without breaking patents. That's not a win.
How so? I didn't even mention the word "Apple" in my post. I just purchased a Macbook Air, I like Apple. This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with a broken patent process.
Watty, It's not whether I like Apple or Samsung. I myself feel that the patent process is broken. My only point was not to single out Apple and leave the others. In this case, there was enough evidence that Samsung "willfully" copied from Apple. For example, a 132 page document was a very hard evidence including emails from the company. You do not require patents to prove it. Patents were used to calculate the financial losses. If otherwise, there would have been a long list of patents which the judges may have seen Samsung to infringed. However, that's not the case.
Will you pleas stop with the mis-information. Read the linked article by Nilay Patel. It explains exactly why you are wrong about pinch to zoom.
"It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents." Or in simpler terms, it forces companies to innovate.
"Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development?" Sounds an awful lot like "Won't you please think of the children!" to me. Let's not forget that IBM, HP, Apple and Microsoft all started out at some point as the little guys, as did Google.
You're right. They tweaked the obvious, and patented it. It's almost as bad. Software patents like this should not be validated.
To allow two fingers to zoom and one "tap" to set ... next, you'll be telling me that two fingers to zoom and one finger to slide left is patented too. When will this madness end?
This "if not Apple someone else would have done it" argument is the biggest pile of horseshit Apple apologists have been spewing since these lawsuits started. Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google against Bing? Or against Duckduckgo?
> Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google
> against Bing?
What it has to do with search?
As for mobile—there were numerous spider-web type graphs showing who is suing whom. You can actually see the lawsuit started (again) by Motorola agains Apple. Motorola is now owned by Google, if you missed that bit of information.
Ultimately there are no good guys and no bad guys—it all boils down to the stupidity of patent systems and who you like more.
I think his argument is that Google has a big pile of patents in search and distributed systems, but isn't using any of them offensively. So, the whole argument that it's okay to act unethically (but legally) because someone else is bound to rings especially hollow here. As for the rest of your comment, it's a disingenuous argument that's been thoroughly debunked, so I won't bother wasting the time or keystrokes on it.
Google is just anouther company that thinks its shit dont stink. No different from any other in my opinion. So why dont you have a look through this and consider what you are really saying.
> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with.
That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.
Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.
You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.
Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.
If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.