More thoughts

I made errors in judgment in my last few posts. Next time I'll do better research. In our last episode, I chided LG for making what I thought was a silly iPhone ripoff with the Venus. What I forgot is that it is only one of many phones that they make. I was recently informed of the LG Prada, which launched close the iPhone, has many similar features, and looks rather slick.

So I need to revise my thought about Apple's success. I still believe that they know how to make basic computing concepts simple and user friendly, as well make hardware that looks nice and packs power. But the problem with the competition is not that they can't do the same things. Rather, they get into trouble because Apple puts their balls in a vicegrip. They can make something that's slim, fast and gorgeous, but if it isn't the same as the look and feel of Apple's products, people won't be nearly as excited. They end up being forced to abandon their own concepts and mimmick Apple, because everything else gets crushed.

Of course, doing this makes their products look like second rate knockoffs, so they still wind up losing.

I guess the best approach would be to stake out one's own path, carve out a niche, and try to expand it. Still, this has to be frustrating when you realize that the only reason you have to work that much harder (and longer) is because you can't generate a Reality Distortion Field.

This makes me think some more about Apple's recent lawsuit against HTC for patent violations. As always, these software patents are used irresponsibly, and the nature of the descriptions create enough wiggle room for people to create poor but convincing defenses, either because the text is too vague, or the concept is.

There's a whole lot of bickering going on about this over at slate.com, and the thing that gets me is that Apple apologists mount their defense based on very specific, strict facts. We all love facts, because compared to opinions, they're a hell of a lot better at proving things. But facts work come in different flavors. If you have a scientific fact, there's nothing you can do to rationally wave it away. It isn't going to change, unless you can use more science. But if state the fact that some terrible thing a corporation does is entirely legal, does that end the discussion just as quickly? Yes, it is a fact, but unlike the laws of physics, the laws of government can change. And the fact that something was allowed doesn't make it right. Humans make mistakes, after all. I'm sure someone out there would grill me for this, but in my mind, a person who argues the gravitational constant has no leg to stand on, but the person who is upset that a corporation screwed someone over by using loopholes shouldn't be immediately dismissed.

This is why the pro Apple arguments bug me so much. Yes, patent law as we know it today allows them to file a suit, but that doesn't mean that patent law is working properly. And yes, there are certain aspects of the iPhone that are original in a very specific sense, but that doesn't mean it was fit to patent. The argument that we should "hate the player, not the game" doesn't always work. If we don't hate the players, then the game will never change. You can try, but if we don't see anything wrong with the someone's actions, then there doesn't appear to be any reason to change.

One of the worst arguments I saw on slate boiled down to claiming that Apple is in the right place at the right time. He claimed that their use of a entirely multi touch based device was unheard of before, and is original enough to patent. Everyone else has to build touch features onto pre-existing interfaces, such as a key or mouse based device. (PS - can the iPhone work without ever using it's single button? If not, it ain't a multi touch only device).

But on a gut level, I see no difference between "multi touch based device" and "mouse driven device". The argument can be interpreted as saying that if the mouse or the GUI was invented in the 2000's, then the inventors would be right in patenting them, and forcing other device makers into building it on top of other interfaces. Imagine if we actually had to do that. It sounds absurd, because it is. Keyboards and touch screens have been around for a long time. Using them in different ways is only so original. And in my mind, they are not original enough to patent. There's also the problem that hardware like a keyboard and mouse is such that their functionality is largely determined by the actual configuration of the hardware. Touch screen interfaces are governed far more by their software than a Logitech mouse. Hardware is a lot more concrete than software, which is why software patents are almost universally despised. We can use this example in my previous argument - there were some legal issues surrounding GUI's, which are interfaces based mostly on software, during their creation. These were resolved, and these days no one can really stop you from making a GUI based OS. But imagine if instead we had a legal showdown like this one Apple is brewing up? That would be rather dangerous. Not to mention that the actual issues that came up were resolved by Apple working with Xerox. In this current battle, Apple has put competitors in the situation they were once in, without the chance to wheel and deal. This is a fact too, but it won't be used by apologists to negate the necessity of the lawsuit.

Lastly, there's the really finicky, not-so-fact based dilemma of Apple being in a position of power. One commenter argued that if they didn't file these patents, someone like HTC would. It was a first strike scenario. When the law works as intended, size won't matter, and indeed, we have seen large corporations lose out to smaller patent holders, and vice versa. But if HTC had these patents, and filed suit against Apple, you wouldn't see Mac fans defending the little guy. They'd laugh at the fact that the underdog dared to try and get in the behemoth's way. But in the world of Internet debate, such touchy feely ideas are stomped upon, no matter how accurate they may be.

I should have just made this argument with a bit of common sense. If Apple is going to purposefully ignore features and software that they don't like, then screw them for trying to stop people from building upon their ideas.