Hacker News Reader

Comment by josteink | Hacker News Reader

I'll repeat my statement from when the 1 billion dollar verdict was made, since it seems like little will change before people vote with their wallets:

Today Apple went down in history as the biggest patent-troll of all time, stiffling innovation and competition like nobody has ever done before.

If you are a software-developer you should recognize the fundamental threat which Apple represents to your profession.

Boycott Apple if you want to be able to stay in business in the long term future. Throw away your Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. Ditch your iTunes and iTunes account. Get rid of everything Apple. All of it.

Be vocal about your code of ethical software conduct and how that prohibits involving anything made by Apple into anything you ever do.

View on HN

I grew up using a Mac. My dad first bought a Macintosh SE back in the late 80’s, and I spent my days playing breakout (or whatever it was called back then). I finally got my own machine in the mid 90’s, my sparkling little Performa 5200. I learned how to program on it, building little programs using a Pascal-like language. On my walks to school, there was a daily battle with all my PC owning chums, the evangelical nature was strong. After a stint using University machines, I picked up the first Intel Macbook back in 2006. My laptop died earlier this year, and I decided to simplify my portable life by picking up the New iPad. I’ve also owned a few different permutations of the shuffle over the years, enjoying it's simplicity and lack of features.

With news of the forthcoming retina 13 inch Macbook pro, I was contemplating getting a new laptop (the ipad is fun, but I miss coding on the go). But today, that thought officially died.

We are done, Apple and I. They have gone too far, and I can no longer support them as a company. Every dollar I spend on their products will go toward killing the very place I call home. I encourage everyone to vote with their wallets. If you believe Apple is hurting our industry, stop supporting them. Next time someone asks me for gadget/computer advice, I will be pointing them in a different direction.

  > Today Apple went down in history as the biggest
  > patent-troll of all time, stiffling innovation and
  > competition like nobody has ever done before.

Only Apple is no patent troll, because they produce and sell high quality products which other companies try to copy.

Please, tell me how much innovation will be stiffled when Samsung can no longer produce these highly original connectors http://www.davidglover.org/facsimilist/wp-content/uploads/20..., or USB adapters: http://cdn.mactrast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Samsung-P...

  > Throw away your Macbooks, iPhones and iPads.

Indeed, you won't need them, others came with a plenty of fresh ideas: http://dewith.com/2012/its-not-just-phones/

See, this is why we should use the term "patent extortion" instead of trolls. To avoid pedants like the above.

I tend to prefer "patent ogre" myself.

How exactly is this whole power adapter and usb connector thing even relevant? Who sits down, and decides to buy a product based on the configuration of the included cables? I sure don't.

Nobody is arguing Apple hasn't done great things for the evolution of phones and laptops, but so have other companies. Least we all forget, Apple is the granddaddy of ripping off technologies (and good for them, we are better off for it).

Yeah they definitely are not patent trolls unless the meaning of the term has changed since Lodsys made the news earlier this year. Lodsys seems to just be a company who has a bunch of patents and waits for someone to implement one and sue. Apple created something, got it patented, and took it to court. To me that seems like it is what the patent system is about.

I dont agree with patents in the current form, but that is the game right now.

I am sick and tired of the hundreds of multiple trees of comments wasted on misunderstanding plain English terms that another meaning was tacked on and the sides that people take for words used in a casual context.

Examples:

open source vs. Open Source

free software vs. Free sofware

Viruses vs. trojans

patent troll

Why can't we have a wiki or manifesto or something where we all agree on some definitions? It's funny how otherwise highly intelligent people(and programmers used to strict programming languages, no less) can't decide on one definition and resort to nitpicking.

Back to the topic:

>Indeed, you won't need them, others came with a plenty of fresh ideas: http://dewith.com/2012/its-not-just-phones/

Please, someone put a stop with the cherry picking 'before and after' memes. Here's the Sony x505 from 2004 with the wedge shaped look.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20020535-64.html

Why wasn't that included in the picture on the site?

Because it doesn't fit with the agenda they're trying to push. Not to mention that there are tons of laptops nowadays that don't look like Macbooks. So now does that mean Apple copied Sony?

Industries borrow look and feel all the time and make incremental changes all the time. E.g. the fashion industry or the car industry.

Edit: Hell, even Apple had a side project to explore how a Sony inspired iPhone design would look like. (yes, I know they didn't go to market with it and did have earlier prototypes that looked like the later iPhones but weren't Sony inspired) http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/early-iphone-prototypes...

Sorry, but your comparisons are a bit off. Apple might be inspired by Sony, yet innovated on top (like any good innovator does). What Samsung did are cheap copies (as well as HP and Asus for their ultrabooks). This has nothing to do with industry "inspiration" this is plain copying: http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4dadf745ccd1d5aa3f1...

Downvote me if you want. I don't agree with what Apple does. However, if something like that would happen to me, I would be really angry. Samsungs S-Voice anybody??

Samsung is a great hardware company, yet they are cheap copy-cats when it comes to UI design /services.

The patents are ridiculous (as any software patents are). This holds for anybody suing, be it Apple, Samsung, Motorola (Google), etc. Keep in mind that Apple did not start this mess.

I actually believe that these lawsuits will let us get more innovation (as people need to come up with fresh designs like Nokia and Microsoft did ... and won't copy like Samsung).

just look at the new samsung series 5 and 7 ... "Industries borrow look and feel ..." lol http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/29/3276599/samsung-series-5-s...

seems samsung borrows a lot from just one company. Just saying.

Because actually both are using the standard 30-pin PDMI connector and just modify the pins.

http://www.bizlinktech.com/pix/PDMI%20CRADLE%20CONNECTOR2_cl...

The comparison images you found are created by uninformed Verge and Engadget forum trolls. It is absolutely normal that all 30-pin PDMI based cables will look identical other than the branding on them. Samsung feared this would happen and made their cable a different color and put a clearly readable SAMSUNG logo there. Apparently, it wasn't enough.

Also note that this is completely irrelevant right now. Samsung's phones (including the phone-tablet hybrid Galaxy Note) use the standard Micro USB port and they ship with Micro USB cables.

Apple doesn't use PDMI.

PDMI standard was developed in 2007. Apple introduced its 30 pin connector in 2001. PDMI was an attempt by industry players to standardize Apple's connector without Apple's input.

Thank you. I didn't know Apple introduced its 30-pin connector even before the PDMI standard. But still my argument stands. Both Samsung and Asus are using 30-pin PDMI-based connectors for their 10 inch tablets. I find it pointless to do a side-by-side comparison of two 30-pin connectors.

Yes, the time has come for an Apple boycott, both by consumers of their products and by any decent engineers that work for Apple.

Apple is a company compelled to be greedy. It's actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible given any legal and ethical way it can. Suing another giant tech company over legitimate patents is ethical. The system is designed so that a trial determines if the patents are legit. This is what happened. If you don't like that, then fix the fucking patent system. Quit whining that your favourite tech company lost.

Companies are not teams, they are simply the manufacturer of a product that you either bought or chose not to buy. If you don't like the way a company is legally and ethically running it's business, then change the law. Don't boycott the company who is succeeding best at working within the framework provided.

Suing another giant tech company over legitimate patents is ethical

If you don't like the way a company is legally and ethically running it's business, then change the law. Don't boycott the company who is succeeding best at working within the framework provided.

You seem to be confused about the difference between 'ethical' and 'legally allowed'.

No, I'm not, and the reason you think I am is because you're not looking at the whole picture. Apple invests it's shareholder dollars in R&D on the promise that they will return on that investment. Apple spent years getting it right, and then Samsung copies the work and spits out a competing product in a fraction of the time. Apple is suing because Samsung stole ideas, and Samsung is leveraging it's business on Apples R&D.

Now, I don't think ideas or design should have a monetary value. But if you live in a world where ideas have currency, then stealing ideas is theft. We need to change the laws so ideas are free to all men. Apple isn't the problem, it's simply the best at navigating the problem.

"Samsung is leveraging its business on Apple's R&D."

Samsung is leveraging its business on Google's R&D. With Google's consent. Fixed that for you.

Well, absolutely, Samsung is leveraging Google's, and many companies R&D. But R&D isn't cheep, intuitive, or obvious. Blackberry decided not to copy Apple very much, still created some great phones from a product view and they died. Nokia copied not at all, and they're not doing too well. HTC copied a little, and they are doing okayish. Samsung copied a lot more and is doing the best. My argument is all ideas should be free. We should adopt the good ideas globally so every phone copies the best ideas. You get an inventors monopoly for as long as it takes to reverse engineer. In our current product cycles, that's ~2+years. All problems solved.

Galaxy S3/Note/Nexus have nothing in common with Apple R&D. Just because Samsung is providing better mousetrap to the market does not mean that it is riding on Apple.

Btw, the first cellphone was made by Motorola. The first cellphone with MP3 player was made by Samsung. Is Apple riding their R&D?

Of course they are, but they are paying licencing fees to use the features that they are. Otherwise they would be sued.

Apple is being sued by Motorola. http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsui...

They were sued and the jury found the U.S. case found no violations at all.

That's incorrect, the first cellphone with MP3 playback functionality was the Siemens SL45, introduced in 2001. I used to own one, it was a fantastic phone for its day.

The Samsung SPH-M100 (aka, the 'Uproar') was the first cellphone that could play MP3s from internal memory, as the SL45 required a MultiMediaCard, but it was beaten to the market by Siemens.

That said, this all comes down to FRAND vs non-FRAND patents all over again. I truly believe that this distinction is something that needs to be clarified or even completely removed if we're going to make any progress on patent reform.

So you think executing and leveraging wrong laws is excuseable?

There are lot of examples in mans history where this was not the case. This is another one.

Not only excusable, but encourageable. It's a LAW. It's maliable. If it's wrong, fix it. The reason we have them is to govern what we can and should do.

So executing the Nuremberg Laws was encourageable?

Just be clear: Large 720p screen, curved design, stylus are all characteristic iPhone features on which Apple spent years getting it right and then Samsung copied?

Because these are the devices that are being sued here.

I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer. I'll let the experts figure it out.

You're missing my point. I'm not really arguing about which billion dollar company did or didn't copy trivial/non-trivial patents from another billion dollar company.

You seem to think that anything legally allowed is ethical. That if Apple has an obligation to their shareholders to do X and X is legal, then it's totally ethical for Apple to do X.

That's not what ethical means.

Since ethics isn't fixed, then what watermark do you suggest to define a universal ethics. It's like euthanasia, is it ethical for a doctor to commit murder if it's to stop terrible suffering? It was ethical to own slaves, but not ethical to have them work on a Sunday. Nowadays, having staff work Sundays is ethical (although your probably a jerk) though it's no longer ethical for them to be slaves.

> If you don't like the way a company is legally and ethically running it's business, then change the law. Don't boycott the company who is succeeding best at working within the framework provided.

"Vote with your wallet" is a valid strategy. Just because the company you like is at the receiving end, does not change it's validity.

It's actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible given any legal and ethical way it can.

What law says that? I seriously want to know.

Don't boycott the company who is succeeding best at working within the framework provided.

Why not? As a consumer, am I not entitled to buy (or not buy) from whoever I want? Am I really not allowed to take any other factors into account beyond the legality of the company's behavior?

Even if it is "actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible" (please show me that law), over what time frame? It's not unreasonable that this aggressive policy could result in a diminished Apple image/reputation that could negatively affect long term profits more than any alleged patent infringement.

There is no law that obligates the directors of a company to maximise profit, at least under the Corporations Act that I know of in the UK. There is a statutory requirement to act in the best interests of the legal entity that is the corporation, and what these obligations are has been further defined under case law.

There is no such law here in the UK. I will leave the US corporation law context to someone else with specific knowledge.

>It's actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible given any legal and ethical way it can.

A corporation has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of its shareholders, but I think this fact is greatly overstated. Since "best interest" is such a flexible and uncertain concept, most cases where people bring this up are not really the "legal imperative to be assholes" that they believe. By suing Samsung over this, Apple has risked triggering an all out patent war between the major players in the mobile market which could end up costing them tremendous legal fees and may wound them grievously if any of the ensuing lawsuits were not decided in their favor. Suppose Apple had not taken to Samsung to court over these patents. Does it really seem plausible to you that the shareholders would sue Apple's board of directors, and win?

But assuming that corporations are legally expected to perfectly predict the future and optimize for their shareholders' interests, a boycott would still be warranted. If we let companies see that acting like a bully will hurt their bottom line, then those companies will be legally compelled to act in the interest of their shareholders by not being bullies.

Speaking from the UK perspective, the false idea that maximisation of profit is inferred in any way by corporation law is sometimes more easily seen when examining the case of 'Private' companies. These are companies still limited by shares, or stocks, but where the director, the single shareholder, and the employee are all one and the same person.

It can be a valuable example because it is easy to show how a director making decisions that maximise benefits to the shareholder are not necessarily in the best interests of the company entity, and in fact are viewed with suspicion by regulating bodies.

The best interests of the company include many other considerations besides shareholder return. One of those has to be long term viability for a long lived corporate entity. Eroding goodwill and reputational or brand damage go directly to the heart of the concept of director responsibility.

On the contrary, your own logic would imply that a boycott is the only logical action to take.

You say that it is "actually the law for Apple to make as much money as possible given any legal and ethical [sic] way it can". So, the only way to help Apple management back off from the use of preposterous software patents without the serious risk of breaking that law would be to enact a boycott and create a serious damage to the company image for doing so. A damage that could make that course of action not the one to "make as much money as possible".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com