Tweet
iPhone and Galaxy side-by-side from Apple's April 15, 2011 complaint
Apple spanked Samsung so hard their whole family could feel it on Friday when a 9 member jury found that Samsung had violated numerous Apple patents that pertain to the iPhone.
The jury deliberated for only 23 hours, an indication that they found Apple’s chronological, side-by-side presentation of Apple and Samsung product development extremely convincing.
The decision is being hailed as a loss to consumers, but if you look at Apple’s April 15, 2011 complaint (PDF), you’ll see what the jury saw. I’m fiercely opposed to granting endless patent protection to companies that simply want to increase their profits by gobbling up rents. But Apple’s complaint makes it pretty clear that Samsung took the millions that Apple had pumped into dramatic technological and design innovations and basically made a clone of the iPhone, seriously infringing Apple’s market.
Moreover, documents presented to the court showed that Samsung did so consciously and willingly.
And as long as Samsung got away with it, it opened the door for other Android developers to say “what the heck, everybody’s doing it now, it’s just standard modern technology.” But if you think back to how radical the iPhone was in both design and function when it was released, it certainly wasn’t standard then.
Rather than sit down with Apple and license their handset technology (as Microsoft did), Samsung basically took the position of “fuck you, sue me.” Which Apple had the money to do.
Somewhere Steve Jobs is laughing uncontrollably, having pledged all of Apple’s resources to fighting the case.
But not every technology innovator is going to have Apple’s resources to take on multinational titans. Rather than argue that this is a blow to consumers, I think this decision does what patent law is designed to do: protect innovation.
If mega-companies can just reach down and grab any technology that gets developed (as they regularly do) and take the position that they’re too big to sue, it crushes the incentive for all small developers hoping to earn a competitive spot in the marketplace by developing good products. It means companies like Samsung can easily dominate the market, and save money on expensive R&D by simply pumping their profits into making themselves too expensive to challenge in court.
But Samsung was really just a stalking horse for Jobs’ real target: Google. As Rufus D notes over at Seeking Alpha:
In the meantime, the real target here, and the one Jobs was mainly after, is Google. They cloned the functionality of the iPhone with Android, and then distributed it for free to all takers. They have no license agreement with Apple, and they pay no royalties to them. However, several Microsoft innovations were copied in Android, so Microsoft (MSFT) went around and got license agreements from all the handset makers, and thus they receive a royalty for every Android handset sold. Google gets nothing, but freely enables others to infringe on Apple. It is a part of Google’s general strategy to try and destroy their competitors with ‘free’ versions of valuable software, all funded by their ad-click cash cow. Steve Jobs and everyone else in technology have worked together to cross license technologies, create industry standards, and keep the whole ecosystem moving forward in a profitable way. For example, Microsoft has a smartphone license from Apple, and does not infringe with their current and upcoming Win phones. Only Google refuses to play, doing their best to undermine competitors in any underhanded way they can.
It’s virtually impossible to develop a Google-sized monopoly without breaking the law — or having it re-written to suit yourself (Google didn’t spend $6.3 million on lobbying in 1Q 2012 for nothing). And I don’t see how Google picking its teeth with the bones of the small business competitors it has crushed with their own innovations is a boon to consumers.
Samsung will now judge-shop and appeal the award in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, hoping to get the $1 billion award lowered.
Meanwhile Judge Koh has scheduled a September 20 hearing on the injunctions Apple has asked for. Apple claims that the infringing products Samsung has on the market are causing them “irreparable harm” — and I daresay they’re right.
Update: In an interview with one of the jurors, CNET’s Greg Sandoval says “the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple.”
Update II: I didn’t read Dave Dayen’s post that argues this is a blow for consumers until after mine was written. He makes a good case that innovation will be chilled and that upstarts “would have to completely design around these landmine patents.” I believe the alternative where competition is chilled because big corporations can just steal whatever technology they want to be a bigger danger, but Dave makes some compelling points and it’s well worth the read. This is certainly a decision we’ll all be mulling over for a while with many implications for the future.
98 Comments
Recommended. I’d agree with you that this was a good decision that does what Patent law is meant to do.
mfi
Rec’d. An excellent article, Jane. And, I know your position on the other side of patent abuse from your past comments on abusive drug patents. Thanks.
Thanks, wigwam. Yep, I’m not exactly what you would call a patent enforcement freak, by any stretch of the imagination.
Thanks, Mark. Samsung probably would’ve gotten away with it if they’d just changed it up a bit. But if you look at the images in the Apple complaint, the theft was so blatant — Samsung didn’t take the time to change it up even moderately, just copied the iPhone and rushed it to market. It’s a pretty compelling visual history that makes Samsung look remarkably bad.
That’s what I don’t get. Doesn’t some VP, or other person with clout, ever mention that maybe they should change things a bit so the cloning isn’t too obvious?
My comment is so far OT that it winds up becoming the other OT.
By the time the courts got around to hearing Apple’s suit against Microsoft for infringing Apple’s (small w) window GUI (which Apple snookered from Xerox), the entire consumer and business economy had adopted the MS Windows platform, aka ‘IBM-compatible’, aka ‘PC’. Apple and its Macintosh computer were floundering.
It would have been catastrophic for the Windows/PC platform to cease and desist. Instead, there was a settlement, which included Microsoft’s investing hundreds of millions in Apple. Apple was saved, recovered, and never had to compromise its elegance.
Another instance a lesson learned and of not repeating the mistakes of the past.
That takes time. I haven’t reviewed all the Samsung documents that the jury saw, but they evidently openly acknowledge that they were copying the device. Developing alternatives takes time, and every day Samsung lost getting a competitor to the marketplace was profits lost. They probably figures they were going to get sued by Apple anyway, and they’d make more than they would ever lose.
It was a stupid gamble, as was refusing to negotiate with Apple for a license in 2010 when Apple came to them and said “hey guys, we need to talk…”
Kodak did the same when it infringed Polaroid’s instant camera and film patents. Polaroid won handily and easily. Kodak had to know it would lose before it went to market, but they probably figured they’d make plenty selling enough film in the meantime.
So: I wonder if Samsung had nothing to worry about, which to my cynical way of thinking would mean they had kickback deals with the telecom carriers — where all the money flows from those gadgets.
I know what you’re thinking: What’s a Polaroid? What’s Kodak?
Comparing the photographs of each phone is your evidence? I could compare two television sets made by two different manufacturers and each television looks remarkably similar. Same goes for comparing two lightbulbs made by different companies or two photocopy machines, etc.
I’m pretty sure the emails from Samsung executives openly acknowledging they were copying the iPhone straight up had something to do with it.
Use a rectangle, go to jail!
Ah, the things we did when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
I really miss that water buffalo dress and the bone in my hair.
Straight off the Samsung bullet-point sheet and oft-repeated no doubt, but I generally resist having PR flaks to do my thinking for me.
If you read the actual 373 page complaint, the issues are a bit more complex:
http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf
The evidence seems clear and beyond reasonable dispute. Yet the cynical “sensibility” of business today is, apparently, that profits outweigh the “costs” of litigation …
Ever since Ford decided, in the late sixties and early seventies, to allow the continued sale of automobiles which they KNEW were dangerous in the event of a rear-end accident, even fatally dangerous, believing that they could settle any suits without undue financial “burden”, corporations have too often sought to damn the consequences, such as we saw in Bhopal, and Union Carbide’s “response”, and seek “market share”.
As you say, Jane, patent protection does have its place, in terms of innovation and the costs honestly associated with the research which produces that innovation.
Samsung’s “values and philosophy” which are claimed to be ” … a simple philosophy of strong values and high standards …” and their “vision” which is said to be “… dedicated to developing innovative technologies and efficient processes that create new markets, enrich people’s lives, and continue to make Samsung a digital leader” appear to have fallen just a wee bit short … except, it may be supposed that part about “enriching” some people’s lives.
Recommended to the consideration of all who are witness to the changes, for better and for worse, which technology has brought into our lives and into our awareness.
Again, it is wonderful to have your feisty self back on the “boards” with us, Jane.
DW
Respectfully, anyone with one half-way good eye could tell most color TV’s apart, especially if they were turned on. In the US, there were basically only two versions for household consumers: the RCA vidicon system and Sony’s Trinitron system. The RCA system was crappy and its license fee was hardly more than the postage it cost to send a check to RCA. The Sony license fee was quite expensive, so few TV manufacturers employed the Trinitron, and it’s why Sony TV’s always cost more than the rest. Probably NBC (then part of RCA) used Sony Trinitron 13″ monitors in the control rooms.
Did you work in a TV/Appliance store, where they’d over-saturate and distort the Sony’s color so all the customers would buy the cheap dreck instead?
LOL! Never heard of that.
Raised on robbery and Joe Isuzu.
Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt had a seat on Apple’s Board of Directors from 2006 for a while and left. A few years before that, Sony begged Apple to join forces. Meanwhile, Amazon thrives aloof.
You think Jobs would’ve learned his lesson from giving Gates access to their Xerox Park-developed GUI in the 80s.
But then again, imitation is the most sincere form of compliment.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants, whether they be great minds or, apparently, corporations.
Men who can’t hit a golf ball have to compensate by showing off even if it means losing the ranch.
Dave’s article is based on some expert. We know Google buys experts to explain this technology stuff to us idiots. I wonder if the expert Dave quotes is on the secret payroll.
Thanks Jane. This is a much better post with a much more nuanced and balanced perspective than David’s (which I would interpret as Samsung propaganda if I didn’t know FDL better – it repeats their talking points very directly without acknowledging that fact).
I really appreciate FDL’s coverage of IP issues and I’m feeling better about where that coverage and discussion will go than I was a few minutes ago… :)
There are a whole lot of “free software” coalitions that are astroturf fronts for Google in their attempt to liberate other company’s profits. But there are probably just as many on the other side.
With all the money floating through the tech sector, it’s one of those topics where you really do just have to sit down and go over the primary documents yourself. Trusting anybody else’s synopsis is risky, for obvious reasons.
Another jury sez not so much.
This was a very poor decision by the jury, especially if they made up their mind after hearing only one side of the case. And frankly. reading between the lines of the comments of the jury foreman?, I tend to think that Samsung has a very good chance of having this whole thing thrown out for what amounts to juror misconduct as it’s clear that the deliberations (such as they were) included “evidence” that was not admitted at trial.
Samsung was working on very similar devices before the iPhone was ever known outside of Apple. And the patent system? She is broken.
Bad decision. And we all lose because of it if it stands.
Writing about IP is extremely difficult if you don’t have a background in it, and I actually thought Dave made many good points.
IP rights and licensing is something I did in a previous career. And while I don’t claim to understand tech IP (and I unlike Judge Alsup I have no desire to teach myself Java coding) the principles are still the same.
This is uncharted territory and we’re actually lucky the tech giants have competing interests. It’s one of the only things keeping them in check, or they’d probably be worse than the banks.
Taken in the context of the recent decision in another lawsuit brought against google, it’s clear that they have no scruples and quarterly profit, not long term sustainability, is their primary motivation here. I guess Samsung fell into that business philosophy. It’s a shame because Samsung is better than that and could have probably developed a better product if it had pursued it’s own research and innovation.
Sort-of:
The US jury said Samsung infringed Apple, but Apple did not infringe Samsung.
The Korean jury agreed Samsung infringed Apple, but it also agreed that Apple infringed Samsung.
That’s why I typed not so much, as differentiated from typing that SoKo jury decided the opposite.
If you didn’t read the comments on dday’s post, you might be interesting in my thoughts this this might be camel’s nose in another U.S. weapon to use against Chinese.
About ten years ago Samsung got caught and punished for conspiracy in price-rigging of DRAM chipsets.
As an interface designer, I read the source documents and came away with a different take than your breathless Apple triumphalism. Patenting rectangular, rounded corner designs with colorful icons seems like an extreme patent over-reach that can only serve to stifle competition. For instance:
Making these kinds of outrageous claims on basic design building blocks indicates that Apple is out to restrict competition IMO.
From a progressive/Left perspective, I think we need to be more skeptical about the supposed claims and benefits of innovation and entrepreneurial capitalism. Critique is lacking some circles, and has been replaced with a grasping and unreflective fanboyism. History tells us what voracious behemoths such as Apple do to workers and communities, and we would be wise to pay attention.
Steve Martin weighs in on lawsuit:
So a jury deliberating within a stone’s throw of Apple headquarters voted in Apple’s favor against a foreign competitor. I wonder how many shares of Apple stock the jury members own, either directly or indirectly. For the purpose of full disclosure how much Apple stock do you own Jane ? Do you have any personal connection with any Apple employees or shareholders ?
Heh.
Occum’s razor. ‘nuf said.
$$$ rulz.
I’m impressed, you shur are smart. & actually copied the individual bullet point synopses of some of the patents Apple owns:
Unfortunately none of those was included in the jury’s decision. But it sure does make it sound outrageous to erroneously suggest that they were.
So your designs, they actually work?
I own zero shares of Apple stock, and zero shares of Samsung stock. I don’t know anyone who works at Apple and never have, nor have I ever had any contact with anyone at Apple outside salespeople at the Apple store, except when they refused to honor the warranty I bought for my laptop six years ago for bullshit reasons and I cussed them out.
The notion that there can’t be a fair trial in San Fransico because too many people are biased towards Apple is an interesting one. By that logic, the Prop 8 trial decision isn’t valid because there are too many gay people living there.
My positions on intellectual property are consistent and well documented, and go back to the very first posts I wrote when I started blogging 7 years ago. Nothing has changed.
Let’s stick to the topic and stop with the weird Turrets-like accusations. They make you look unstable.
How many items of the jury’s decision are indicated in the side-by-side photo which you chose to illustrate the premise of your article?
Whether or not the jury included the items I mentioned in my post, as you admit, they are indeed patents that Apple owns, and they are in my opinion outrageous. And they are in Apple’s complaint. That you linked to as evidence of how we need to read the source documents.
No offense but I believe my questions were legitimate. As previously mentioned a South Korean jury, not suprisingly, reached a different conclusion. From what I can see all of the alleged patent infringements involved superficial, cosmetic features not the guts of the machine. Maybe that’s a problem with the patent process and not the jury. Anyway, I’ll try to remember where I live and repeat the sacred mantra: U S A U S A U S A U S A ……..
You don’t recognize Apple’s sense of humor there? (Doubtless in homage to Woz.)
Corners can’t be rounded unless you’re a pedestrian or a car on the street.
A guy told me once you never see angle corners in a Jewish church (his words), they’re always rounded, he said, to keep Satan out.
No opinion as to the substance of this particular issue.
But an unrelated one: neocon vs. Zinn on slavery, compare & contrast.
BIGGGG diff is what is included vs. what is excluded. Takes a lot of work to figure it out. Without that hard work, could reach any conclusion that suits your frame of mind.
Jane you are spot on with the Google thing… there have been several stories today about Jobs wanting to nuclear and getting the google guy off the board…
What I dont agree it is the iphone being “radical”. Its really fits the way Apple does business. If they are late to game they just make up for it by dumping $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on advertising/marketing. The Ipod fits this MO. There second method is to simply be FIRST. And then regardless other products get compared to it. Other companies had similar products in development but they werent ready to release. Or maybe worked but werent a price point they could really be sold at. Apple just releases to be first out of the gate.
lol… i think you outed yourself as fanboy!
and by elegance you mean literally no actual choice. you can have that in white. or white.
None. The photo at the top of the post came from the original complaint. The jury obviously hadn’t made its decision at that point. Most people would find that obvious.
You proved you can copy and paste from the complaint, congratulations. I’m sorry, we don’t have brownies to hand out. I hope you’re not dissapointed.
But it’s hardly a substitute for informed commentary based on comprehension of the underlying concepts, which — your weird, ad-hominum outbursts notwithstanding — you have yet to demonstrate.
Anger > attack > cut & paste > press “submit” just doesn’t rise to the level of Socratic discourse. Not yet, anyway.
A lot of people don’t know that their (premium-level, no fee) credit cards include a warranty feature which extends an original warranty by 100%, or doubles the duration. If the original warranty is one year, the credit card’s underwriter extends the warranty another year, and so on. Reimburses every penny, including cost of repair attempts or estimates, and all taxes.
I had a warranty that was in effect. Apple just came up with a bs reason not to honor it. There was a mark on the case or something they claimed could have caused the problem. With the way we use these things, it’s a miracle if there’s NOT a mark on the case. It was a ludicrous assertion, and the wanted $1200 to fix it.
Came across that computer the other day. It’s still in its box. I told them to send it back & get stuffed. And that’s the last contact I ever had with anyone at Apple that wasn’t a salesperson at an Apple store.
Apple sucks for plenty of reasons, among them running sweatshops in China to squeeze $65 more out of each iPhone and turning the city of Fremont into a police state to make up for a drunk employee’s mistake. In addition to selling worthless warranties. This time they just happened to have more of a case than Samsung did, even though I’d agree the patents they have been granted in the past are overly broad (though not the ones the jury based their awards on in this decision).
r u txtng @ me?
I own a copy of The Age Of Elegance: The Paintings Of John Singer Sargent. I know what the word means and how to use it.
Do you read at Ric Ford’s macintouch.com? Stories similar to yours get posted there, some are cranky, most are useful, and more important, Apple people read there and pay attention. All developers read there.
One of my replies to earlier dday post was that geek neighbor of mine pointed out (when fixing a MS prob for free, bless her soul) that when apple product went rotten, there was no way of fixing it. Had to pay up for new.
Maybe and maybe not. I tried to use that additional warranty for an 18 month old laptop(keyboard crashed). I had one of those receipts that fade out over time, Visa said they couldn’t read it and denied the claim. So on a large purchase copy your receipt right away.
That Apple is a humble innovator, fighting off the “multinational titans” who want to steal their goodies is patently ridiculous, and rather a twisted way of looking at this case IMO.
More like not every tech company is going to have the vast resources to squelch innovation out of the market as Apple and other behemoths have done. Of course, Apple wouldn’t do that because they’re different, or so their PR department tells us.
If Apple vs Samsung is like-to-like, as in 2 multinational giants going after each other, what are the ramifications of this case in which Apple or any other giant goes after a smaller entity? How can a smaller entities (workers, enterprises, what have you) compete with the bigger multinationals? It seems to me this, rather than endless Apple polishing, is the pertinent progressive/Left question regarding these kinds of legal maneuvers.
translation:
IDONTHAVEAPOINTSOLETSCHANGETHESUBJECT
What exactly do you find in my comments to be “a weird ad homenin outburst?” The precise words please. I think if you make that kind of accusation it’s polite to back it up.
It seems to me that you’re the one who’s getting personal here. I haven’t made any personal reference to you, but rather the ideas put forth in your commentary. But you’ve gone out of your way with derogatory comments about me personally.
Depends on the product (a CD/DVD built-in writer ain’t fixable if it’s broke, it would have to be rebuilt at a greater cost than replacing it). My Mac needed a new power supply, those can’t be ‘repaired’ for less than it would cost to buy a used one. Capacitors explode and can be replaced. Bad RAM can be replaced. Dead USB ports can be replaced. A dead motherboard isn’t worth replacing if the unit’s out of warranty.
Your good geek friend is repeating what’s known as ‘Mac marginalization’, you know, they can’t run games good.
… why all this fighting over something running a Gnome 3 desktop?
Yeah, those heat-transfer receipts go invisible after time. There are other proofs, like the credit card statement itself, which usually satisfies the credit card company’s underwriter, and your payment to the credit card company is also proof. These days, if you go online your credit card transactions are available either at the site or in PDF.
The Apple Store (for one) offers an instant receipt and the option of getting an email copy of it also. But you shouldn’t stand too close to the sales associate when the email goes out, you don’t want that RF radiation guzzing your fragile body.
Patent claims on rounded rectangles and colorful icons are egregious and restrictive in terms of competition, and represent an insight into Apple’s intentions, whether or not the jury ruled on these items or not IMO.
We are talking about our thoughts regarding Apple’s intentions, so my comments are relevant and not merely cut and paste.
People who enter the conversation accusing others of “breathless triumphalism” don’t have a lot of moral high ground to summon the WAAHMBULANCE.
Other than some tender feelings and a lack of self-awareness there doesn’t seem to be much you’re bringing to this discussion. If you’d like to elevate the level of your comments and offer meaningful, thoughtful and respectful insights I’ll be happy to respond. Beyond that I hope you have a good evening and will leave you to your own company.
I sent them the CC statement also, that was not enough for them.
It seems to me that people who start the conversation with such a characterization might be cognizant that others might disagree, and not take it personally when they do.
Kind of. Google is indeed the ultimate target, but Android isn’t iOS (in many ways it’s better) and Samsung really went out of its way to set itself up as a target. Carriers and manufacturers have considerable latitude in how they implement Android, and there’s no question the apps list on Samsung devices looks like the iOS home screen. While one hopes Apple will get back to innovation instead of litigation they can hardly be blamed for taking the bait when it’s dangled under their noses. The award is excessive, but not surprising.
Really? Icons and a taskbar? I totally see how that was invented for the iPhone specifically and had never existed anywhere before.
Jesus this is stupid.
IP in software has always been a tough subject. Apple was given the windows stuff by Zerox, they paid the biggest IP thief on the planet, Bill Gates, to code the interface for the MAC with the promise he wouldn’t copy it for the PC. Gee, big surprise; Windows. If I remember right, that was when Jobs tried to sue over a patent for the “look and feel” of windows since the code was different for the different machines.
Bill Gates built M$ on basically copied technology; PC/MS-DOS was nothing more than a 16 bit port of 8bit CP/M; he bought the company that did the port and beat the CP/M designer to the contract with IBM. DOS still had hooks in command.com to read CP/M files and disks. The rest of PC/MS-DOS came from copying features from UNIX (for you geeks; command.com had an “instance” counter variable which is used for multitasking. Something M$ never put into DOS, and is still lousy at even today, but UNIX has done from the start.)
I watched Gates intentionally destroy small innovators for no good reason except to win some imagined competition. He did it the old capitalist way; give away the product their competition sells until the small guy folds.
We all use PC “clones” because Phoenix Bios (and the other company I can’t think of right now) found out how to break the copyright on the BIOS on PC’s by writing code that did exactly what the IBM BIOS did, but with different code. If this hadn’t happened, PC’s would all be IBM and thousands of dollars each. Innovation would have been at their dictated pace and would the internet have gotten anywhere if very few people could afford computers?
In contrast, Jobs won all his IP suits and nobody makes anything for the MAC; and the MAC has enjoyed an average of something 5% of the market in spite of having superior hardware to the PC.
IP is a double edged sword. If it was followed to the letter, we would be having this conversation via the USMail.
Yep.
The truly grim humor in all this lies in various OS distributions that are now intent on turning the PC desktop into something that looks and acts like it belongs on a celltop.
Thus my snark about Gnome 3.
I’m fiercely opposed to granting endless patent protection to companies that simply want to increase their profits by gobbling up rents– unless it’s Apple. They’re so dreamy!
You do get bounced out of here for repeadly asserting things you know to be factually wrong. Its how we keep the PR pros out. You’re right on the edge so clean it up.
I think you should retire from this thread because I don’t want to ban you and I don’t think you want to be banned. So say goodnight Gracie.
You’d also be eliminating loads of fun, but I understand.
Did you speak to someone on the phone? Ask how they’re doing, how their weather is, what time zone they’re in, make the person feel like a partner in the issue?
I get it. But I’m on my iPad and I don’t want to break out my computer at 11 pm so I hope that’s the end of it.
I’d wake Katie up if I had to move and we can’t have that.
;)
I haven’t asserted anything counter-factual, but rather linked to an AP article that comments on what Samsung might do at this point. As I understand it, their response is not limited to the specific items expressed in the jury’s reward.
Gee, you missed the comments by Jane where she discusses some of the various things she dislikes about Apple.
No, I won’t point them out to you. I’m going to force you to look for them so you’ll have less time to post Carnackian insinuations.
So BlackBerries and T-Mobile slider phones all are flat rounded rectangles too? Um, no.
Interesting. Do you know how the apple/motorola complaint compares?
Re the award: federal appeals court is almost guaranteed to knock it down. Basically this just forces samsung to the negotiating table. The Microsoft deal will probably provide the blueprint, so worries about Apple driving up consumer prices with draconian licensing fees are unlikely.
In the interest of full disclosure I used to wait for the bus in front of Bill Gates’ house when I was in junior high. Never met him, and I’m sure he wouldn’t know me if he ran me down in the street. I’m told he may have subsequently hired some people I went to high school with, but since I haven’t had any contact with them for over 35 years and probably wouldn’t recognize their names, I hope that dispels any worries about “undue influence.”
Would that iPad be the same iPad I saw you using when you were in the frame of a livestream several months ago (probably near the White House, but I don’t know for sure?
You must have nicely manicured fingernails or use a dictation app: no typos. ;o)
Dammit! You woke Katie up.
Now go cool your heels until tomorrow and remember what got you sent to the penalty box. Don’t do it again.
I think that was outside the courthouse of Dan Choi’s trial. Yep, same one. Just beat to shit now & being held together by a screen protecter.
I remember when the iPhone first came out, how so many persons were lining up to diss it as being terribly impractical because it was so different from every other small mobile phone out there — that the touch screen would get dirty/smudged/cracked/etc., the phone’s flatness and rounded-rectangle shape (a combination that no other phone had at the time, and certainly not in conjunction with a touch screen) wasn’t ergonomically correct, that touching icons would never substitute for a real keyboard, that tablet computers were tried and rejected by the public over a decade ago and the iPhone was nothing but a small tablet computer with phone bits, that it would never equal the BlackBerry for business use, and so on.
In other words, the iPhone, with its shape and touch screen and icons, was quite, quite different from what every other cellphone of 2007 looked like.
So all this pretending that Apple’s trying to patent something like fire or the wheel is either disingenuous or the product of very short memories.
Maybe you remember Woody Allen’s character, Fielding Melish, I think in Bananas, who tested office equipment. Funny scenes of automated drawers and chairs confounding him.
Probably Apple should have used you to test drive its iPad, I can’t imagine they ever conceived someone would use it so much. You must have callouses like Jeff Beck.
By the way, I suspect that the main thing that this decision does, in the immediate future, is breathe new life into the BlackBerry.
If Google/Samsung have to retool their phones or do what they should have done in the first place and ask Apple for licenses, I have a feeling this might allow RIM to slip in and get business customers reacquainted with the BlackBerry line via the Torch and Curve models, for starters.
It’s almost impossible to separate out the nonsense from the anger about the iPhone’s introduction, especially concerning the mandated exclusive partnership with AT&T for the carrier. Soon enough, jailbreakers freed the iWidget, then Apple threatened to cancel the World Series, the Super Bowl, the Oscars, iTunes, and anything else it could think of, but eventually cooler iHeads prevailed.
Most of them would be, that’s for sure. I think Apple is a pretty good player but that shouldn’t be counted on either.
I didn’t know you have an IP background. I’m sure that will be helpful. I’m actually an app developer and work in tech so I’m pretty familiar with that side of it. I don’t have a legal background but have followed IP issues in tech for a long, long time.
One issue thats not discussed enough is protecting the IP rights of indie developers. *If* we’re going to have a software patent system and we want indies we need to be able to clear their apps in a cost effective manner as well as protect their rights when they innovate. As it currently stands the big players don’t fear copying an indie because they know the indie can’t defend their rights in court. Either indies should be exempted from the system altogether (both protection and liability) or we need to do more to ensure they reap the rewards of legitimate IP they create…
This is a rather cartoonish version of the history of the Mac. It would be nice if you learn a more accurate history of this if you’re going to write about it rather than repeating this superficially sort of accurate but very misleading version of it…
They did not copy or steal. They had a contract giving them rights to use the IP they were exposed to. They took that inspiration based on a very brief demo with no technical understanding of how it worked and added significant work of their own both technically and in user experience. The Lisa and Mac were both light years apart from the Xerox Parc demos.
The Korean result is likely to have broader implications as it appears to contradict
FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) agreements for standards essential patents. In other words, it looks like the home court is playing favorites in a way that won’t stand well internationally.
This is shows a complete lack of memory. When the first iPhone was announced it was heavily criticized for having no physical keyboard. Many people thought it would be a flop. It was actually a *very* radical departure from current phone design at the time.
I’m surprised to hear this. My experience with Apple support and warranties has been extraordinary. I’ve had many things fixed / replaced for no charge even when they were my fault. The warranties have always more than paid for themselves in my family. It sounds like you had some pretty bad luck with the employees you encountered…
Apple doesn’t claim rights to icons and a task bar. They claim rights to the design of specific icons in a specific arrangement in a task bar. Take a look at the Samsung icons and you will see they are nearly identical to the iPhone icons.
Thanks for reminding everyone of this PW. The way people consider the iPhone innovations so “obvious” as to not deserve protection almost proves just how valuable these innovations were. The “app” model Apple invented is also lightyears from the traditional PC software model and without it the “app” phenomenon would remain a tech-geek thing. Do we want to reward and encourage this kind of risk-taking innovation in our society or not?
Without Apple’s innovation everyone would probably be using phones that look more like an old school Blackberry and would be about as reliable as old Windows computers. The process of installing and updating software would be a nightmare that makes your phone unstable (and deleting the app cleanly would not be possible). This is after you managed to find the website of a third party app developer and decide to trust them with your credit card number and pay the much higher prices they require to operate in a niche market.
As you will soon find if you haven’t already, Jane’s not an Apple fanboi or a Windows fanboi or a Linux fanboi — she treats the tech world as she does the political world, with a highly skeptical eye and a willingness to go where the evidence (and not the propagandists, paid or otherwise) leads.
I do see that, which is a good thing. It will lend more credibility to the FDL coverage. I do think evidence leads to Apple being a much better player than the rest for quite a long time in many ways. They aren’t perfect but they don’t steal IP or play dirty within the industry.
I also believe they have been a force for improving working conditions in China. I know this is probably a controversial opinion around here, but I think there is evidence for it. Agree with it or not (and please don’t read my into this), I think the perspective of their leadership is that they must push for steps forward while still having competitive prices (they are especially sensitive to this as high prices is part of what almost killed Apple). They believe it is better to do this and take smaller but still meaningful steps forward rather than getting run out of the business and having it dominated by players who won’t even try (and I’m not aware of others who appear to be trying). Realizing actual change in China is a pretty complicated thing and I don’t claim to be an expert. I just don’t see anybody doing more than them to improve the situation.
What do you mean by “software patent system”? Or do you mean copyright? I don’t think US laws or courts have defined anything like a ‘software patent’.
At first, of course, the iPhone wasn’t even going to have apps or developers, it was going to be web based except for Apple’s built-in apps.
But the app phenomena is one of those things that cuts both ways.
Yes, apps have been democratized, more people are developing software than ever before, and the scaling out of the customer base has made $1 and $2 apps commercial feasible.
On the other hand, Apple’s controls and policies over the app store are undemocratic. If I own the device, I believe I have the right to run whatever code I want on it. Instead, I can only run apps that Apple has approved and large swathes of content are not available through Apple-approved apps. Jobs famously sad: You want porn, buy an Android phone. Steve had excellent taste, but I don’t want his taste to govern the content I consume.
There’s a real issue of freedom here, similar to the issues that come from our Main Streets being turned into privately owned malls that can regulate free speech in a way governments can’t on the public streets. Except, of course, I own my phone. We are, as Cory Doctorow has put it entering into a civil war against general purpose computing, as more and more devices will only run apps that are corportately approved. Having upgraded my MacBook to OS X 10.8, I had to go into the security settings and actually change a setting to “run whatever program you want”.
And don’t get me started on e-books, DRM, and the fact that you’re not actually buying an e-book, you’re licensing the right to display it on a device and in manner set by the publisher…
Disclaimer: I do own Apple stock and own an iPad and an iPhone. I used to use an unlocked Android phone, until a routine upgrade rendered it impossible to use. I decided that, as a tradeoff, I’d rather have a content restricted phone that worked than a open phone that didn’t. I really resent having to make that choice.
The law doesn’t specifically define “software patents” but existing patent law has been upheld in software cases including this Apple v Samsung case (scroll bounce back, pinch to zoom, tap to zoom, etc).
You are correct, but you miss my point. This process is what has created a system where consumers feel safe buying and downloading apps as if they were media content. They know the financial and software parts of the transaction are secure and they are able to trust it won’t mess up the stability and reliability of the device.
You can have total openness / freedom or you can have this “safety”. You can’t have both (at least I have never heard of a system that is able to offer both). Many people are choosing the safety and reliability of Apple’s ecosystem. The other platforms have copied this in many ways. Of course Android leaves the system open for those who opt to go around the centralized store, but at their own risk. Apple prefers to not have to deal with users who place their devices in an at risk state.
The problem is that without the restrictions stability cannot be guaranteed by the vendor and is likely to be at risk. You resent a fundamental tradeoff in software systems design. You shouldn’t resent Apple for coming down on the same side of the tradeoff that it sounds like you did. In fact, they gave you the choice of a stable phone which it sounds like you’re happy to have.
Good points. Apple owns maybe hundreds of patents, possibly a thousand or more overall. Mercedes-Benz has been touting its more than 80,000 patents. It’s a fair trade at one dollar per patent for all you get. Of course, your kilometrage may vary.
No, I take your point. The controlled app environment is seemingly safer, at least when it comes to rogue apps doing bad things.
But, as in society at large, there’s a tradeoff between security and freedom. I don’t like the tradeoff Apple has chosen to make, but I understand.
When it comes to content, though, it’s not a security/freedom argument, it’s a “we don’t like that on our devices” argument. I neither want nor need Apple to be the content nanny for my phone.
My Android phone was made unusable not by its openness but by a standard Android update sent out by Motorola/Verizon. It simply required more memory than the phone actually had. (I’ve been a Linux systems administrator, and an Android phone is a touch-based Linux system. I know a memory starved system when I see one.)
This speaks to basic quality issues in the Android ecosystem, not an issue with openness/restrictions. Of course I’m happy to have a phone that works, but I’d rather have a phone that worked that didn’t also require me to but into Apple’s value system.