Hacker News Reader

Patents cover implementations, not features. These patents are not BS, they are legitimate. There are bigger patents that cover larger aspects of the iPhone inventions but those patents were filed later and thus not granted in time for this trial.

The Mac IS based on the work of Xerox, but that work was licensed by Apple from Xerox. Thus there is a huge difference-- Samsung does not have a license from Apple.

View on HN

Well... The main patent in this case is the "bounce-back patent".

Where would you draw the line of what´s patentable? To me this seems actually to trivial as with most software patents.

In terms of software it´s not really the implementation that´s protected, more the concept... (Nobody is comparing source code and is looking if it´s coded in the same way)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com