Thread

1. hingler36 · 1790445142 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm interested in reading more information as it comes out, but a lot of the comments claiming it's "just vibrations" are being a bit reductionist. These devices are controlled by complex algorithms, and they take a lot of time and money to create. Why shouldn't this company enjoy the same IP protections that Apple enjoys on their work?

   1. 93po · 1790445896 · focus · HN ↗

      My issue with stuff like this is their work is not worth $6 billion dollars. Yes it takes time to develop this stuff but it isn't ground-breaking work and isn't especially novel. A room of experienced engineers, given the same constraints, would likely be able to come to the same design conclusions without much time or expense. Patents in general have this problem. A lot of it is a race to patent as much obvious and fringe-not-immediately-useful-today stuff as possible and it unfortunately works a lot of the time.

      1. fennecbutt · 1790519404 · focus · HN ↗

         So you agree then that Samsung paying Apple $539m for the rounded corners dispute was wrong? And that rounded corners "aren't worth that much money".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.