Should have been:

and we would likely agree something fairly narrower would do a much better job.

Now, this argument above is as concerns patents. I agree that the more narrow the focus, the less harm. It is not nearly as horrible to prevent “clones” if that were the case here, as would be the harm to enforce your typical vanilla swpat (which is what is the case here).

BTW, I apologize for poking at you (figuratively) by bringing patents back in my last comment. We had sort of narrowed the argument down to high degree of copying. However, I want to quickly challenge 1, 2, and 3.

1. If you know what a swpat is like, it’s hard to imagine you would doubt violations likely exist with a product as complex as a phone. At best you might be hinting that perhaps all such patents have been licensed by Apple already, but that is IMO less than 50% likely, knowing little about Apple but assuming they have already cross-licensed with many patents.

2. I thought I had read that Samsung or someone else had already sued back. [In a popular diagram showing a bunch of firms suing each other, I think Apple is being sued by numerous firms.]

3. If you draw first blood in court, you are an aggressor. I think you are trying to suggest Samsung, by copying so closely, might be the aggressor, but this ignores point 1 above or that almost surely in someone else’s opinion, Apple too has copied “too closely” to something that existed before.

Anyway, we can keep arguing over subjective grays. I think we mostly agree swpats as a whole have high costs for society and at most we would want something fairly narrower.

A lot of assumptions here:

1) Apple is violating patents
2) They are getting sued as a result of this
3) They are aggressors in this fight

None of these are well supported. Remember, Apple contacted Samsung and tried to work things out outside of court.

> Don’t forget Apple is a big boy and has made a ton of
> money for their investment. I don’t support those
> patents they are using to sue. They don’t need them
> to innovate and profit. They are using them to try
> and profit obscenely as they hold back progress and
> hurt consumers.

And I think this is the real problem you and Roy have with Apple – *not* anything really to do with patents or who is suing whom but the fact Apple makes a gob of money. They do so, of course, by making products that please customers more than any other products in the markets they are in – they almost always earn the highest user satisfaction ratings.

They are successful – and this is a problem to many.

> Competition (and tapping into market tastes) means
> that eventually most cell phones, most shoes, most
> anything end up resembling each other in many ways,
> at least at some point in time.

The resemble each other in some ways… and I have already talked about how I think it is fine to find inspiration in other’s products. I also admit the line where companies cross and do more than show they were inspired is a fuzzy one. I cannot draw or describe the line well – and this is a huge problem for me “solving” the IP issues. I simply do not have the answers.

> Apple appears to have “copied” from the LG phone and
> from many ideas and probably many concept drawings
> that have been created by engineers/artists/etc at
> various times independently of each other. Fact is
> that if you can have a slimmer phone, the market will
> produce one eventually.. and obviously someone has to
> be the first. Great, Apple got first mover advantage
> (putting LG aside for a moment) and made a ton of
> money. Now, let’s move on and keep competing instead
> of litigating. Apple is a big boy.

I am all for competition. I am not for *unfair* competition, and I think this image shows Samsung crossed the line (as fuzzy as I admit it is):

http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

Someone (you?) recently said the image was wrong and some of the “after” images should be in the “before” section. If so then my view is wrong – given that my view is largely tied to the idea that the image there is accurate. If it is not I would be interested in seeing evidence.

> Apple should not be suing. And in the end, it will
> likely hurt their brand among various groups and
> result in more counter-suits.

It might be a strategic mistake on their part… but that does not mean they might not very well be right.

Don’t forget Apple is a big boy and has made a ton of money for their investment. I don’t support those patents they are using to sue. They don’t need them to innovate and profit. They are using them to try and profit obscenely as they hold back progress and hurt consumers.

Competition (and tapping into market tastes) means that eventually most cell phones, most shoes, most anything end up resembling each other in many ways, at least at some point in time. Apple appears to have “copied” from the LG phone and from many ideas and probably many concept drawings that have been created by engineers/artists/etc at various times independently of each other. Fact is that if you can have a slimmer phone, the market will produce one eventually.. and obviously someone has to be the first. Great, Apple got first mover advantage (putting LG aside for a moment) and made a ton of money. Now, let’s move on and keep competing instead of litigating. Apple is a big boy.

Apple should not be suing. And in the end, it will likely hurt their brand among various groups and result in more counter-suits.

I admit – there are gray areas and I do not have all of the answers.

I think it is safe to assume, though, that looking at the images of Samsung before and after the iPhone and iPad, they are very much copying Apple. The claim has been made that some of the “after” devices should be in the “before” and I am open to that – if there is evidence.

> Where specifically is this line? There is much many
> would say Apple copied from that LG phone, and the
> *picture* you show of Apple and Samsung products
> don’t show identical products, just potentially
> similar ones but in superficial ways.. with much more
> overall copied from prior phones and software.

I think the similarities are far from “superficial”… in look. I would need to use them to talk about functionality.

> Anyway, this website largely attacks Apple (in the
> recent Samsung context) for being a patent aggressor
> and attacking free software, I think. We can see that
> they borrowed much from earlier products yet are
> willing to take legal proactive (and injunction
> based) action to fully stop others from borrowing
> some of the bits they added. If we can now agree that
> many patents might be bad, it still seems Apple is
> the aggressor and is ignoring their own dependence on
> others.

How so? Apple is not saying others cannot learn from them (be “dependent on them” if you wish). They say they cannot “slavishly copy” them. And I agree. Doing so is wrong.

Now the courts can decide if they Samsung really did “slavishly copy” Apple or not – but it seems Apple has a case to be made. I am not saying I think they should definitely win it, but that image, if true, is pretty damning evidence against Samsung.

> As a separate matter, I don’t want to rub your nose
> in anything, but it seems your position has wavered a
> little. I mentioned this last point in the context of
> you getting very aggressive with Roy, yet, even after
> looking at evidence
> http://techrights.org/2011/10/07/steve-jobs/comment-
> page-3/#comment-130953 , I don’t find you made a case
> there. Here I don’t see your case either.

I think I have made very strong cases for:

1) Roy accused me of lying about my KDE experience. His “evidence” did not support his accusation. I kindly assumed he was merely mistaken and chalked it up to that. Roy later became hostile when asked about it… and showed he had no evidence to back up his accusation. And he has none. Not a shred. He simply is lying

2) Roy was incorrect about current PCLOS. It is far less consistent than he believed. He now refuses to comment on this. I was also incorrect – it has improved, in that area, more than I had expected it to.

3) Roy was incorrect about older PCLOS. It was far less consistent than he believed. He now refuses to comment on this.

4) Samsung, based on the before and after images, clearly has been copying Apple to a very strong degree. Roy also refuses to discuss this. He claims Apple is the aggressor but offers very little if any support, and, I believe, has never talked about how a company should defend itself from such copying.

Apple copied much from what existed before. Why should the line be drawn here or there? Where specifically is this line? There is much many would say Apple copied from that LG phone, and the *picture* you show of Apple and Samsung products don’t show identical products, just potentially similar ones but in superficial ways.. with much more overall copied from prior phones and software.

Anyway, this website largely attacks Apple (in the recent Samsung context) for being a patent aggressor and attacking free software, I think. We can see that they borrowed much from earlier products yet are willing to take legal proactive (and injunction based) action to fully stop others from borrowing some of the bits they added. If we can now agree that many patents might be bad, it still seems Apple is the aggressor and is ignoring their own dependence on others.

As a separate matter, I don’t want to rub your nose in anything, but it seems your position has wavered a little. I mentioned this last point in the context of you getting very aggressive with Roy, yet, even after looking at evidence http://techrights.org/2011/10/07/steve-jobs/comment-page-3/#comment-130953 , I don’t find you made a case there. Here I don’t see your case either.

Not quite. I agree that there should be a system which does not allow those who have spent a lot of time, effort, creative energy or whatever into making a fairly complex system to be harmed greatly by those who just want to make knock-off systems.

The Samsung products, if the before/after images are to be believed, clearly cross the line. I side with Apple there. The claims that the term “app store” should be proprietary, however, I thought were absurd and was very clear with that even before the courts shot Apple down there.

> The concept that people needed Apple is laughable.

Has anyone made that claim? I know many people who have rarely if ever used an Apple product (hmmm, they might have iTunes or QuickTime or something on their PCs – but you get the idea). They seem, in general, to be living pretty decent lives!

> I imagine you are bothered that Apple can’t have the
> market to themselves and people are following along
> after those products have been shown to be lucrative.

Quite an imagination you have there!

No: I think Apple changed these markets greatly but the natural “evolution” of the market is to try to learn from successful (and no so successful) competitors and try to do better. So for others to make tablets which are inspired in many ways by what Apple did is, to me, fine. Heck, Android is *clearly* very heavily inspired by Apple, but I have heard few arguments that it crosses the line to just being a direct ripoff (though I have heard some say that… it is not the general consensus… I admit to not having enough experience with Android to have a strong opinion one way or the other – but given what I have read I doubt it has crossed the line).

Your comments below are based on an incorrect “imagining” of my view:

> But you are against competition, then! You are
> against people seeing others succeed in an area..
> starting a fad (or maybe technology simply caught up
> and someone obviously had to be the “first” with
> success) and then competing in that market! You
> appear to be against what many would call a free
> market.

Do you see now why this assessment of my views is incorrect?

…

> I’ll answer your other comment here. Apple came into
> the phone business for the first time at some point
> in time.

Deep.

> At that point, they copied a lot of features that
> existed in the market. Jobs did not conceive of a
> piggy-shape, coloring-book, phone that is held on
> your shoulders with a wire frame to be hands-free and
> uses a new type of “wire” and wire protocol and new
> concept of an operating system, buttons, calling,
> applications, etc.

Well, he may have… but that is not what Apple got to market (not just Jobs – while he was certainly influential, it does not mean he did all the work on the iPhone that was released!)

> Instead, he essentially copied a phone and its
> features from what existed, adding a little twist
> based on existing ideas and prior art. Look at any
> phone and at software devices that existed before
> Apple got into the game and you will find huge
> overlap. Apple copied a LOT more than they
> contributed. This should be clear, yet you speak as
> if you have no clue that Apple possibly could have
> copied anyone.

Oh, I do not think anyone believes Jobs or Apple created the concept of the cell phone or even the smart phone.

> The patent system gives patent for things non-obvious
> to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

And, given how different it was, clearly the iPhone was “non-obvious” – it was a massive game changer.

> That is a sadly low inventiveness standard and is one
> reason why getting a patent isn’t even a mark of
> serious innovation much less of promoting the
> progress (and because of the broken system, patent
> after patent are given even without due concern for
> the prior art).

I agree the system is heavily broken.

> And in the case of software, we have abridgement of
> expression and swpats should be ruled
> unconstitutional, not just for not promoting the
> progress or being abstract or math, but for violating
> the duality between expression and idea as concerns
> speech.

I will agree that the current IP protection laws (not just patents, by the way) need some serious overhauling.

The LG product is an example that Apple was not first in ways where many people believe they were. At some point someone is very successful and naturally introduces a thing or two (that likely have been in many engineer’s or artist’s minds for years). Why are you against competition? Why do you want one person to get a government enforced monopoly for being first on general ideas (not even on exact details)? Why do you think only the first to have success deserves a shot at that style? Why do you want to ignore the LG not very successful attempt but then support monopolies from Apple onward? Tell me you don’t have an Apple bias?

I’ll answer your other comment here. Apple came into the phone business for the first time at some point in time. At that point, they copied a lot of features that existed in the market. Jobs did not conceive of a piggy-shape, coloring-book, phone that is held on your shoulders with a wire frame to be hands-free and uses a new type of “wire” and wire protocol and new concept of an operating system, buttons, calling, applications, etc. Instead, he essentially copied a phone and its features from what existed, adding a little twist based on existing ideas and prior art. Look at any phone and at software devices that existed before Apple got into the game and you will find huge overlap. Apple copied a LOT more than they contributed. This should be clear, yet you speak as if you have no clue that Apple possibly could have copied anyone.

The patent system gives patent for things non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. That is a sadly low inventiveness standard and is one reason why getting a patent isn’t even a mark of serious innovation much less of promoting the progress (and because of the broken system, patent after patent are given even without due concern for the prior art). And in the case of software, we have abridgement of expression and swpats should be ruled unconstitutional, not just for not promoting the progress or being abstract or math, but for violating the duality between expression and idea as concerns speech.

I am aware of the images and agree they are not good ones to use. What I do not agree with is pointing fingers without evidence. Other reports claimed that Apple was denied access to the actual devices and was only allowed to receive images – and these were the images. If so, then the third party that provided these images is at fault. If Apple is at fault for this, then of course they should be held accountable. Elsewhere I have written that if Apple *did* forge this evidence or even used it knowing it was forged then the case should be tossed out (even if Apple had a legitimate point) and they should face fines or other repercussions.

> It also seems, to pick one example, that Apple copied
> a ton from the LG Praga
> http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada-
> unlocked/4505-6454_7-32316442.html

The article notes the iPhone had not yet been released… but there is no accusation of anyone copying anyone else. There is a difference, also, between two makers releasing two products that are similar vs. one company making a range of products that are, in looks, very much like the products of the top seller of such products. The first is, at least possibly, a coincidence (though if there is contrary evidence so be it)… the latter is obvious copying.

I would love to see support for this. If true that the “after” images should really be in the “before” section it is very strong evidence against Apple’s claims. I admit I do not know the Samsung products well and was trusting this image (and some similar ones along with some reports) were correct. If you can show me otherwise I would be very interested in seeing it. And, yes, this would change my mind about Samsung copying Apple.

To make it easy for others to follow, this is the image in discussion: http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

> I see black color, plastic, rectangles, software that
> looks just like software that has been used on
> desktops for ages. I also know there are other things
> not viewable in that picture but that Apple had not
> produced but other firms had. I also know that Apple
> has violated a ton of patents because software
> patents is a broken system — no, it would not be
> right for Samsung to agree to broken patents that
> very possibly would not be upheld in the SCOTUS if it
> was pushed to that level. Why do you ignore that
> Apple is violating so many patents and has copied so
> many features from others?

I agree that the overall IP system is very broken – and do not excuse Apple for its wrong doing. Where did you get the idea that I did?

Are you aware that Samsung wasn’t afforded an opportunity to present their case before the ruling?

Here is another story that covered this in the early days http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110418/15182213940/apple-sues-samsung-because-galaxy-tab-looks-too-much-like-ipad.shtml

It also seems, to pick one example, that Apple copied a ton from the LG Praga http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada-unlocked/4505-6454_7-32316442.html

But you can only call people names. Interesting.

——
Apple’s then-CEO Steve Jobs personally got in touch with Samsung last year to try and head off a protracted legal battle
—–

So with #1: you made it up. You have no evidence and no point. Got it.

2) Apple never claimed to have a patent on rounded corners. The rounded corner FUD came from Apple listing that as one of *many, many* elements that are the same. I already showed you the visual evidence of the massive amounts of copying: http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

So with #2: you are repeating false “advocate” FUD which is, at best, an extreme bastardization of facts with one point taken completely out of context.

3) You pretended that it is a given that smart phones will have fewer buttons. Do you know why the Blackberry is called the Blackberry? I mean, really, that is just silly. But if you want to show where Samsung’s products looked the way I show you in the image *before* Apple came out with theirs then by all means do so. If not, well, it is obvious Samsung copied Apple *greatly*. Given how the evidence is overwhelming and there is *no* counter evidence, how is it even worth debating?

So there we have it: Samsung copied Apple. You denied this. Apple contacted Samsung and tried to work things out before taking them to court. You denied this.

And then you repeated false “advocate” FUD about patenting rounded corners.

In other words: the evidence is not at all in agreement with your views. I am OK with that if you are. And you seem to be.

1) Nothing on your claim about “last time you heard”. From where? Nowhere. You made it up.

2) Patenting rounded corners. Where did you get this? Again: it is complete false “advocate” FUD.

3) You ignored the evidence Samsung copied Apple.

Interesting. You pretty much went out of your way to admit you are just making things up as you go. Then you added:

“Apple must go to court with every smartphone producer”

Why? Are you saying everyone is copying Apple? Do you really think only Apple can be innovative? And then you claim forged evidence – an accusation which I have seen made but never supported (that *Apple* forged anything).

Your typos are excused… your making things up is not.

http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

There is *no* doubt Samsung went out of their way to copy Apple. None.