If you don't like the patent system, I have a sympathetic ear. I have issues with it as well. I've yet to see any proposals for an alternative, though, and an alternative would require amending the constitution.
If you're going to abuse the system to push competitors out of the market, you can do this with every competitor. Apple has not sued RIM, Palm, Microsoft, or any of the feature phones that -- from an abusive, overly broad perspective-- infringe on Apple patents.
Apple has only sued the people who took the iPhone design and replicated it. Apple is going after the cloners, not the competitors.
Before the iPhone was announced, android was an OS for a blackberry type device. It was better than RIM's OS, I believe, but it was the RIM formfactor and UI style. After the iPhone was announced, suddenly android became a touch-screen phone OS, copying the iPhone.
It is important to remember that a touch screen UI was never done before in this way. There were no touch screen phones prior to the iPhone announcement. It isn't like the iPhoen was just another phone... the iPhone was a new kind of phone. It created a new category. Just as the iPad created a new category (despite there being table PCs in the past, going way back, there was no tablet device market prior to the iPad.)
Apple invented the touchscreen UI, and much of the technologies for the modern smartphone. Apple started working on the iPhone and iOS system for the iPad project sometime around 2002-2003. Google started working on the touch version of android in 2007- after the iPhone was announced. If google had decided to compete, and launched a massive R&D effort, and invented a bunch of stuff, then they'd have patents of their own to defend with. They didn't, they just copied the iPhone.
There is no question android is designed to be an iPhone like OS running on touch screens with multi-touch. Apple invented this category of product, Apple has patented it with legitimate, innovative, non-obvious inventions.
Calling this "abuse" communicates to me that you think when it comes to software, people should be able to copy whatever they want.
I think that's bad. I think google should have innovated, and if they aren't willing to do so, then I don't think the should be able to just outsource their R&D to Apple and get the results for free.
The purpose of patents is to open the kimono and let everyone know what you've done. Apple did this, which gave google a heads up for starting their own innovations. This is good for innovation because it means companies don't have to start from scratch. It isn't a license to just copy the patent and not innovate.
Calling this "abuse" communicates to me that you think when it comes to software, people should be able to copy whatever they want.
If by "copy" you mean "create products with similar functionality without copying code", then essentially yes. Otherwise we'd end up with one spreadsheet, one browser, one touchscreen phone, and we'd still be on Friendster.
The first iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007. The LG was announced on December 12, 2006. Your timeline seems to be a bit off.
> I made a good, rational argument, but since I'm not in agreement with the hive mind, it is currently sitting at -1.
So two people downvoted you. Let me explain how voting works on HN: A comment which the initial readers dislike will be downvoted, because they tend to express their opinions through downvoting rather than argument. Then, over the next few hours, the rest of the people on HN will show up, read your comment, and vote on it based on whether they think it presents a "good, rational argument". This happens all the time - comments drop down to -1 or -2, the submitter freaks out about hiveminds, and then when the rest of the people on HN get around it reading it it gets upvoted. Calm down.
Also, due to UI issues, it's aggravatingly easy for iPhone users to accidentally vote on a comment. I've become incredibly paranoid when reading HN on my phone these days just because I've accidentally driven so many commenters ballistic with random downvotes. Getting mad over one or two votes just doesn't make sense, even less than getting mad over HN votes in general makes sense.
(Incidentally, and ironically given the subject matter, this problem doesn't seem to exist on Android. I wonder if Apple has a patent on forum rage.)
I don't understand how Apple proponents can claim on one hand that iOS is vastly superior to Android but on the other that similarities between the two systems pose an existential threat to Apple's ability to innovate. Either execution counts or it doesn't. If Android is outselling the iPhone at similar price points it's obviously doing more than just copying. What's worse, the patents with which Apple is actually litigating are trivial.
The defenses I hear of the patent system remind me a lot of defenses I hear for American drug policy. At this point the evidence is overwhelming that current U.S. patent law does more to stifle than to foster innovation and this is going to hurt American global competitiveness in the long run.
Look towards iOS 5, you could easily say Apple outsourced their notification system R&D to Google. And that is the problem with software patents. Everyone borrows bits from here and there, sometimes there is just one obvious way of doing things, sometimes there is parallel inspiration. As long as peope aren't actually stealing code or intentionally trying to deceive customers, it is a pretty large grey area.
If you're going to abuse the system to push competitors out of the market, you can do this with every competitor. Apple has not sued RIM, Palm, Microsoft, or any of the feature phones that -- from an abusive, overly broad perspective-- infringe on Apple patents.
Apple has only sued the people who took the iPhone design and replicated it. Apple is going after the cloners, not the competitors.
Before the iPhone was announced, android was an OS for a blackberry type device. It was better than RIM's OS, I believe, but it was the RIM formfactor and UI style. After the iPhone was announced, suddenly android became a touch-screen phone OS, copying the iPhone.
It is important to remember that a touch screen UI was never done before in this way. There were no touch screen phones prior to the iPhone announcement. It isn't like the iPhoen was just another phone... the iPhone was a new kind of phone. It created a new category. Just as the iPad created a new category (despite there being table PCs in the past, going way back, there was no tablet device market prior to the iPad.)
Apple invented the touchscreen UI, and much of the technologies for the modern smartphone. Apple started working on the iPhone and iOS system for the iPad project sometime around 2002-2003. Google started working on the touch version of android in 2007- after the iPhone was announced. If google had decided to compete, and launched a massive R&D effort, and invented a bunch of stuff, then they'd have patents of their own to defend with. They didn't, they just copied the iPhone.
There is no question android is designed to be an iPhone like OS running on touch screens with multi-touch. Apple invented this category of product, Apple has patented it with legitimate, innovative, non-obvious inventions.
Calling this "abuse" communicates to me that you think when it comes to software, people should be able to copy whatever they want.
I think that's bad. I think google should have innovated, and if they aren't willing to do so, then I don't think the should be able to just outsource their R&D to Apple and get the results for free.
The purpose of patents is to open the kimono and let everyone know what you've done. Apple did this, which gave google a heads up for starting their own innovations. This is good for innovation because it means companies don't have to start from scratch. It isn't a license to just copy the patent and not innovate.