given that Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
rofl
given that Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
I never contended that. It says right in the article they are paying more for patents than R&D.
Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
Well that certainly explains the lack of innovative updates (iphone, ipad) or complete lack of updates at all (imac) for the past year or so.
At a cost of over 8 Rover Missions?
They should have spent that money to orbit a bunch of satellites that only work with Apple devices, so we can just buy devices from apple, ditch our cellular carriers and ISP's, and communicate and 'web' via iSpace
There were tons of bagless vacuum cleaners before Dyson, so your story does not hold water. Considering how cheap the bags are and the ineptness of most vacuum companies in marketing and selling their bags, I doubt that was a big source of income anyways.When James Dyson invented the bagless vacuum cleaner he first tried to sell the idea to the existing vacuum cleaner companies, such as Hoover. They all turned him down because their business model was recurring revenue from bag sales. Dyson's technology would break their business model.
No, that does not explain the the complete lack of updates for the iMac.
The desktop biz makes far less profits for Apple and its owners than it can make in the gadget market. Apple exists to enrich its Wall Street owners. They put their resources where they get the biggest returns. Apple is not some kind of charitable organization. They do not exist to make desktop users happy. They
exist to make profits for investors.
The US patent system is completely broken. I like Mark Cuban's perspective of simply out performing the competition.
From Bloomberg
"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "
Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner... Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.
Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.
How does it prove the following statement?
"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."
Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.
Without a patent system, I like the idea of copying everything that others make, not putting anything into R&D, and making more money
I'm not suggesting patents go away. What I'm saying is the system should be more conducive to developing new products/technologies/inventions rather than figuring out how to protect every single aspect. This can be achieved by awarding less patents and not awarding patents that protect a core technology such as a multi touch display.
What's wrong with protecting a novel invention relating to core technology? Simply because an idea is popular and crucial doesn't preclude it from protection.
It's just too general. If everyone needs it to make a common product, one company should not be able to protect it.
It's just too general. If everyone needs it to make a common product, one company should not be able to protect it.
Can you give me an example what you feel is "too general" to have been patented? I can explain, after actually reading the patent claims and the prosecution history, why the patent claim is not "too general."
That is completely false.
Apple doesnt innovate much, if at all. They simply purchase rights or companies and piece things together calling it their own. They've been doing it for over 30 years since they took Xerox's GUI.
If you think patenting a small idea like slide to unlock is valid, imagine what Xerox would have done to Apple if these same stupid patents were awarded to scroll bars, movable windows, icons that looked like desktop items, etc.
I might be alone on this, but I think thats part of the problem. Apple's patent lawsuit with Samsung is completely ridiculous. Look at the patents Apple claims Samsung infringed on, I don't think Apple should have been given patents with such a broad description.
That is completely false.
Apple doesnt innovate much, if at all. They simply purchase rights or companies and piece things together calling it their own. They've been doing it for over 30 years since they took Xerox's GUI.
If you think patenting a small idea like slide to unlock is valid, imagine what Xerox would have done to Apple if these same stupid patents were awarded to scroll bars, movable windows, icons that looked like desktop items, etc.
I agree about a multi-touch patent being too general, but you should be able to patent the particular technology used that achieves multi-touch.
There's a problem though. On one hand, giving too many patents can stifle competition (which I don't think is the case for Apple vs Google/Samsung/others right now), but not patenting general ideas will hurt companies that take the extra risk and make something semi-revolutionary. Apple changed the PC and the smartphone industry, but they can't be the only ones making PCs and smartphones.
So I think it's better to be safe and not allow the patenting of big, general ideas. I credit Apple for being the innovative force in PCs and smartphones, and I think their lawsuit against Samsung was justified, but giving them a monopoly on those items would be a total disaster.
Big, general ideas is what is desired when seeking patent protection. The patent office only allows claims that do not overlap with prior art. So the laws already do what you want them to do and does not allow for patent claims that are "too general" and read on prior art.
----------
I don't know if this has been patented, but computer GUI is too general. An app-focused smartphone OS is too general.
----------
So you're saying ANY form of computer GUI shouldn't be patentable? I'm not sure about that...again, smart phones were completely different until the iphone. Doesn't apple's GUI implementation deserve protection since it was never done before, and revolutionized the industry? THAT'S the point of patents...share new and useful ideas with the public so that others can learn/build on your invention and so that the inventor can get credit and protection for their invention for a period of time. Competitors are free to take what apple did and make it DIFFERENT and BETTER, but not EXACTLY THE SAME (as defined by the claims of the invention).
You've got to be kidding. Windows ripped all that stuff off from apple. That is why Apple now patents all of their ideas.
From Bloomberg
"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "
Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner... Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.
Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.