I ducked out of this thread for awhile but it still stuns me that people think that Apple's approach here was any different than the approach pretty much every company would have taken based on the same facts.
I think the bigger problem is that Apple claims to be 'original' here, and we all know that they steal and make better like the best of 'em.
I think the bigger problem is that Apple claims to be 'original' here, and we all know that they steal and make better like the best of 'em.
That and the way the jury handled this case.
I think people are forgetting that the basis of innovation is copy+transform+combine. Very rarely are ideas completely new. Most ideas start off as a new application of an old idea, etc. Incremental innovation has been responsible for a lot of good over the years, that applies to the current situation with the cell phone wars. The current patent system isn't really taking this into account.
Embrace the remix. TED talk from earlier this month.
As I predicted once Google was armed with the Motorola patent portfolio, it would go after Android's lawsuit happy enemies. Heck, Google chief executive Larry Page himself had said: "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google's patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies."
That day came. First, Google/Motorola hit Apple with a patent lawsuit that may yet end up banning the sale of iPhones in the US. Apple may, however, be able to dodge this bullet if the ITC rules that these patents were licensed under "fair and reasonable" (FRAND) terms.
This new lawsuit though doesn't have the FRAND fallout shelter. If Google gets its way with the ITC, there might not be any Phones, iPads, and Macs on store shelves sometime soon. Apple never should have gotten into this all-out patent war with both Google/Motorola and Samsung.
Even back in 2005, I said just how stupid it would be for companies to get involved in a patent MAD war.
Jobs insisted on making it a winner-take-all grudge match and, for some reason, Apple's current chief executive Tim Cook has stayed the course.
Sure, Apple has just become the most valuable company ever, but how long will they stay that way if Apple loses big at any of these patent lawsuits or ITC hearings? Remember, this isn't really about Apple paying megabucks to its rivals; it's about having the iPhone, iPad, and Mac being banned from sale.
How much will Apple be worth if it can't sell the iPhone 5 in the US in September? How much will Apple be worth if Apple can't sell its products in the 2012 holiday season?
If Apple wants to take a chance on going from being the biggest company of all time to being the all-time example of how a company can destroy itself with dangerous lawsuits. Cook and Samsung chief executive Kwon Oh Hyun should come to an mutually beneficial agreement as soon as possible instead of continuing to play at business thermonuclear war.
To quote from the 1983 movie, WarGames, there's only one way to "win" at thermonuclear war: "The only winning move is not to play."
I think a lot of people are forgetting about this. I haven't looked at the patents in question, but I do know and have said numerous times in this thread that Google has a patent pending for the 'notification bar.' The notification bar that Apple blatantly stole and implemented into iOS5. Don't tell Red though.
If Google is granted the patent, they could cause some serious damage to Apple if his current case is going to set the course for how future patent litigation trials are held.
Like the author said, I'm not so sure Apple wants to get into this fight. Android has Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony, LG and numerous smaller companies on their side, all of which will happily go after Apple because Android is their cashcow right now.
Apple has previously argued that Motorola's licensing fees are disproportionally too high. The ITC said Apple had infringed one of Motorola's patents, which could see a ban on iPhone imports as soon as early as this week.
Patent owned by the jury foreman who used his personal experience with patents to help him with the trial.
Quote:
A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. The apparatus further has the ability to offload the video files (e.g., originally stored in the fixed storage device) to an internal removable media storage device. The video files stored in the internal storage devices may thereafter be retrieved, processed, and provided for viewing on demand at a later time (e.g., on a standard television set, a high-definition television set, flat panel display, computer monitor, or an equivalent output device). One embodiment of the invention includes an apparatus equipped with a wireless keyboard and software that enables a user to access the Web and email services, edit recorded material, download new coder/decoder (Codec) software, order a movie on demand, and/or perform other functions
Do I have to even say how bloody stupid that is? He wants to get a patent so he owns the intellectual rights to downloading and saving streaming video to a hard drive? He applied for the patent in 2008.
Considering how often he has mentioned how his 'personal experiences' with patents played an important rule in helping the jury come to a decision, Samsung should be easily able to point out how much of a patent troll this moron is.
Azure, do you realize that trashing Apple for suing Samsung, but the applauding people for suing Apple, makes people take your opinion far less seriously than I am guessing you would like them to.
The laws are set up that if you don't play the patent/lawsuit game, you will lose. It is an income stream for these companies, and part of the thing that helps them justify putting money into R&D. Look at the stock prices today based on the rulings, a portion of that value is due to a confirmation (or lack of) of the IP these companies holding, having actual value. If they don't get that value through licensing, then they will get it through lawsuits.
Apple pays $ to MS for Y feature.
MS pays $ to Google for Z feature.
etc
etc
I am sure you have seen the graph posted somewhere here that shows the huge web of lawsuits of companies protecting their IP. Until the laws get changed, the only thing that it makes sense to be upset about is the laws, not the way any one company follows them.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
The Following User Says Thank You to Rathji For This Useful Post:
How much of the iphone is genuinely innovative, from a technical perspective?
I could care less about design and cosmetics, let alone for the fact that I can't design a chair and patent the look of it.
Honest question.
Nothing if you consider things from a non-design purely hardware perspective. From creating it in a finished product and user experience, that's different and relies on software and design.
Quote:
Software and design Apple USA
Assembly Foxconn?, Quanta, Unknown Taiwan
TFT-LCD Screen Samsung, Sanyo Epson, Sharp, TMD Japan
Video processor chip Samsung Korea
Touch screen overlay Balda Germany
Bluetooth chip Cambridge Silicon Radio UK
Chip manufacture TSMC, UMC Taiwan
Baseband IC Infineon Technology Germany
WIFI Chip Marvell USA
Touch screen control chip Broadcom USA
CMOS chip Micron USA
NOR Flash ICs Intel, SST USA
Display Driver chip National Semi, Novatek US, TW
Case, Mechanical parts Catcher, Foxconn Tech Taiwan
Camera lens Largan Precision Taiwan
Camera module Altus-Tech, Primax, Lite On Taiwan
Battery Charger Delta Electronics Taiwan
Timing Crystal TXC Taiwan
Passive components Cyntec Taiwan
Connector and cables Cheng Uei, Entery Taiwan
Or Apple didn't know how successful the iPhone would be so they took a big risk and let AT&T talk to them into having exclusive rights. AT&T also took a big risk because they probably paid Apple pretty good money for those rights.
In the end it was a win-win for both, but at the time nobody knew that.
To break it down even further, not all those carriers with the various Samsung phones that have been brought into question offered nationwide service. Nor were they all capable of even carrying the iPhone...IF they wanted too.
T-Mobile, Sprint and others use different spectrum from the 850/1900 that AT&T and Rogers used when they signed the exclusive iPhone deals. So they weren't even CAPABLE of carrying the iPhone, even if they wanted too.
You haven't given me reason to change my original assertion that if Apple believed that it's IP would not be protected it would have taken a very different approach on launching an iPhone.
And are you saying that Apple was either unwilling or technically unable to design a phone with the spectrum capability of working across all carriers? When this capability was freely available and implemented in a lot of phones of this era?
The evidence of copying is right there in the pictures of old and new samsung phones. The jury didn't need weeks of talks to make that judgement.
You can't say it was just a matter of time before someone did what apple did. The original iphone was heavily criticized for not having buttons etc. It was called a flop. Now all phones look like that.
And now we are to believe that it was just a matter of time before Samsung came up with that? Don't think so...
Considering that stuff like 2001:A Space Odyssey showed guys using tablet looking things, and stuff like the Newton or various touchscreen/stylus PDAs, I do think it was only a matter of time until an all-touchscreen phone happened. Showing Apple's little pictures doesn't prove anything if that's where the industry was headed anyway. Such as this little gem that I put together...
I mean, come on... TVs used to be so big and ugly, and then one company came out with a flatscreen with a black bezel and rectangular screen, and now ALL TVs look like that. Clearly there was a bunch of stealing involved...
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to QuadCityImages For This Useful Post:
Azure, do you realize that trashing Apple for suing Samsung, but the applauding people for suing Apple, makes people take your opinion far less seriously than I am guessing you would like them to.
Was I applauding anyone for suing Apple? I said it was funny how things work when the tables are turned. Apple wanted more money than normally for patent licensing, and yet they bitch when other companies do the same.
Quote:
The laws are set up that if you don't play the patent/lawsuit game, you will lose. It is an income stream for these companies, and part of the thing that helps them justify putting money into R&D. Look at the stock prices today based on the rulings, a portion of that value is due to a confirmation (or lack of) of the IP these companies holding, having actual value. If they don't get that value through licensing, then they will get it through lawsuits.
Apple pays $ to MS for Y feature.
MS pays $ to Google for Z feature.
etc
etc
I am sure you have seen the graph posted somewhere here that shows the huge web of lawsuits of companies protecting their IP. Until the laws get changed, the only thing that it makes sense to be upset about is the laws, not the way any one company follows them.
Didn't Apple start everything? Not sure, but I saw articles like that other at ZDnet talking about Apple firing the first shot.
Was I applauding anyone for suing Apple? I said it was funny how things work when the tables are turned. Apple wanted more money than normally for patent licensing, and yet they bitch when other companies do the same.
You thought people suing Apple was funny, but clearly don't think Apple suing people is, given your comments in this thread.
I guess applauding might be the wrong word, so you can pick which word applies best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Didn't Apple start everything? Not sure, but I saw articles like that other at ZDnet talking about Apple firing the first shot.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple did not file the first patent related lawsuit related to smartphones.
NTP has licensed its mobile email patents to Visto, Nokia, Good Technology,[4] RIM and all of RIM's partners. The RIM license agreement was part of an overall settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by NTP against RIM (see below).[5]
I am surprised that I didn't notice RIM completely absent from that list. I guess that speaks volumes about what I think about them as a major player in the smart phone market.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Sure there needs to be some protection of IP but this is ridiculous. Should we all be paying licensing fees for brake pedals, steering wheels, rear view mirrors to henry ford or whomever could have patented them?
The allegory is actually spot on. Mobile computing is another wave of incredible innovation much like the personal vehicle was a hundred years ago.
Lots of those things were patented in the early days of automobiles and car makers had to either license the technology or come up with an alternative. In fact, for a while the entire gas powered automobile was covered under the Selden patent. The owners of the patent demanded royalties from all the car makers and pretty much everyone except Henry Ford paid them to avoid litigation. Ford fought it and eventually came out on top after a protracted legal battle, but to pretend that these kinds of things don't happen in any competitive emerging technology is silly.
The reason car makers don't have to pay a bunch of licensing fees now is because all of the patents covering the basic stuff have long expired.
You haven't given me reason to change my original assertion that if Apple believed that it's IP would not be protected it would have taken a very different approach on launching an iPhone.
And are you saying that Apple was either unwilling or technically unable to design a phone with the spectrum capability of working across all carriers? When this capability was freely available and implemented in a lot of phones of this era?
I'm saying that Apple shouldn't complain about marketshare being lost if they never even had a phone on certain networks to compete with Samsung products until recently.
The #1 comparable network to AT&T in the US is Verizon, and they only got the iPhone in the past few years IIRC.
I am sure you have seen the graph posted somewhere here that shows the huge web of lawsuits of companies protecting their IP. Until the laws get changed, the only thing that it makes sense to be upset about is the laws, not the way any one company follows them.
Sorry, can't embed. For the mobile space however this boils down to a very limited set of companies. While Apple might not be involved in all the lawsuits they certainly are involved in the most. All ones they are involved in they instigated. Here's a breakdown for people to read.
One thing that is clear is the lawsuits and litigation madness needs to stop. While Apple isn't solely responsible for the the lawsuit mess, they are the most litigious by far and most willing to exploit a broken system. They should share a larger portion of the blame for this whole mess accordingly, if you were to be annoyed with the system at all.
Nokia vs. Apple
Everyone in the mobile telecom space pays two companies (moto/nokia) for wireless technology related to the invention of the cell phone. Apple refused to pay fees that no one else in the industry refused to pay. Got sued, counter sued and settled when litigation was no longer favorable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1650712.html
Apple vs Kodak
Kodak facing financial trouble wants to sell some of it's patents off to Flashpoint technology. Apple sues to prevent said transfer of patents. Kodak countersues. Ongoing http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/19/k...-patent-sales/
Apple vs Samsung
Apple sues Samsung, Samsung countersues. Discussed to infinity in this thread. Ongoing pending appeals.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
You thought people suing Apple was funny, but clearly don't think Apple suing people is, given your comments in this thread.
I guess applauding might be the wrong word, so you can pick which word applies best.
I'm certainly not applauding. I find a lot of what Apple is saying to be extremely hypocritical, which is why I find it pretty funny how they complain when other companies want outrageous licensing fees when they themselves want to charge the same ridiculous fees.
Quote:
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple did not file the first patent related lawsuit related to smartphones.
I mean, come on... TVs used to be so big and ugly, and then one company came out with a flatscreen with a black bezel and rectangular screen, and now ALL TVs look like that. Clearly there was a bunch of stealing involved...
or there were companies paying fees to the person or company who put a patent on a flat screen TV?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
or there were companies paying fees to the person or company who put a patent on a flat screen TV?
This is a bad example as the original patents on LCD tv's expired a long time ago in the 70's and 80's. But some of the production patents were being litigated as late as 2010, Samsung and Sharp came to a major agreement that normalized the industry.
