This is slightly off topic, but I don't really understand Miguel de Icaza.<p>He is a "free software programmer" according to Wikipedia, and I really value his contributions to both the GNOME and MONO projects.<p>I am not trying to in anyway put down his acheivements but his comments on social media (G+ and twitter) are often about ordering truckloads of Apple products.<p>Was there a falling out with the Gnome project or why is he such an avid supporter of the Apple brand? Perhaps its just a case that he has moved on from his free software roots. I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android.<p>I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to sell software but I am curious what has caused this shift in philosophy or perhaps his involvement with the free and open source software was simply about producing code rather than the free principles behind it.
<i>Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble.</i><p>Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.
Didn't apple recently win a sales injunction against google over the galaxy nexus, because it included a search box on the homescreen that dared to search multiple sources of content at the same time? That seems to disprove Miguel's point that if you don't blatantly rip off apple, you have nothing to fear.
> <i>Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble</i><p>Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?<p>And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple?<p>> <i>I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling</i><p>Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough.<p>> <i>It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible.</i><p>Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302</a><p>People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach).<p>The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction.<p>> <i>I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing.</i><p>People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better.<p>Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system:<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul...</a><p>Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time...<p>Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here <i>without the utility patents</i>. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.