Apple Has Outright Ownership of Nortel's LTE (4G) Patents?

rman726 said:

I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

Click to expand...

Aw, don't buy into the crap this dude is spouting. His opinion of Apple trying to deliberately hobble only Android is mere speculation. There is the assumption that anyone that holds a patent could "hobble" competitors. Most patents still allow for competitors to pay a fair amount of money for licensing, so if Google paid licensing fees, it could in fact use what's covered in those LTE 4G patents. Otherwise, what would be the point of paying for patents if you can't use them for anything. Why do you think Google bid so high? Just to grab them and not use them as leverage against other companies?

Seriously, though. If you designed something yourself, you honestly wouldn't try to protect your product from copycats? Man, you'd be ripped off terribly and that sort of stuff happens all the time. This world is a brutal place when it comes to good businesses and the money that goes with it.

rman726 said:

I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor.

Click to expand...

I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

Winni said:

Have you ever used a Samsung Galaxy S2? In case you do, don't be surprised when you sell your iPhone and switch to the Galaxy -- I did. Not only the hardware of the Galaxy is superior to Apple's hardware, the software is also better in every aspect - and unlike iOS, Android does NOT try to restrict the user whenever and wherever possible.

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Click to expand...

Samsung makes cheap crap. The vibrant was the worst phone ever. Al they do is copy apple and then make a POS.

Winni said:

Apple has lost the leadership and no longer has the better products; iOS 5 and iCloud are "me too" designs that basically only implement features that Android has had for a long time now. Since being good is not sufficient when somebody else is better, Apple is now trying pathetic legal games to regain the pole position.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? even the lowly 3GS outsells most Android handsets.

Android is a complete mess. It can't be "better" anything until its fundamental problems are ironed out.

Perhaps Google should have tried harder at these "pathetic legal games" instead of blowing the bidding the way they did. Now they face possible legal action themselves. A mountain of it.

They bid numbers like Pi and the distance to the sun and other retarded nonsense. Were they bored? Did they just not care? Considering what it means to *not* have these patents, the folks over at Google need their heads checked. Too much geek, not enough common sense.

Now you can add "stupidity" to the Android mess.

rman726 said:

I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

Click to expand...

The "hobble" quote is quoting Cringley, not Apple or anyone else that speaks for Apple. Cringely, MacRumors, etc - do not actually know what patents Apple received, nor do they know what purpose Apple purchased them for yet.

So, to say it was purchased to "hobble" is just an attempt at trolling the internet, link bating, and doesn't contribute positively to the discussion.

neilw said:

Wow, titanic legal battles loom. I wonder how much the Apple legal staff has grown since getting into the phone business....

Click to expand...

8CoreWhore said:

The "hobble" quote is quoting Cringley, not Apple or anyone else that speaks for Apple. Cringely, MacRumors, etc - do not actually know what patents Apple received, nor do they know what purpose Apple purchased them for yet.

So, to say it was purchased to "hobble" is just an attempt at trolling the internet, link bating, and doesn't contribute positively to the discussion.

Click to expand...

The Cringely article lost whatever limited credibility it might have when he babbled something about "restraint of trade." He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.

So, let's see - Cringely has also said Apple will buy Adobe, Intel will buy Apple, Jobs wants to be CEO of Disney..

And, he recently said Apple's North Carolina Data Center was mostly empty. This was after the keynote when Jobs showed photos of the inside and said it was complete.

Should we really be looking to Cringely on this or any other subject? Even on a Sunday night?

8CoreWhore said:

Let's not forget, if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone - for years in secrecy, this form factor phone wouldn't exist. If Apple hadn't done the same with the iPad, tablets wouldn't exist.

Samsung, etc, wouldn't know what to do. There'd be nothing to copy.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents.


EDIT: Nice down votes.... guess the truth hurts.

*LTD* said:

I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

Click to expand...

Ummm... that only works if you can charge ever customers as much as they are willing to pay. If you have a fixed price for all customers then you have to set the price so low they you might not even cover costs.

Better only targeting the segment of the market a nice margin above break even.

rjohnstone said:

I can't believe you actually typed this drivel.
The "form factor" existed already.

As for the LTE patents, if they are part of an industry standard, Apple has to license them to everyone who requests it.
Ask Nokia about their GSM patents.


EDIT: Nice down votes.... guess the truth hurts.

Click to expand...

What multi-touch phone existed before iPhone?

xxBURT0Nxx said:

^^ so you think companies should sit back and let their competitors buy the patent set????

That would be a terrible business decision. All of their competitors were bidding on them for the same reasons, would have been stupid to pass on trying to obtain these patents.

Click to expand...

As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.

*LTD* said:

I don't. That's what you want if you're in business and you're in that position. They're called "competitors" for reason. Ideally, you don't want any, or you don't want them able to challenge you substantially. Duh.

You'd want to become the sole supplier, or get as close to it via legal means as possible. This is basic stuff.

Click to expand...

As stated above, I do understand how the business world works. The mobile phone business is a cutthroat business, and as such I completely understand why Apple did what they did. The thing that gets me is that while I'm fine with a company protecting what is theirs; I just don't like the idea of buying off patents for the sole purpose of hobbling the competition. I just think the consumers would be better off if Nortel wasn't able to sell off their patents to companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, etc...

It's nothing against Apple, because as I stated, I like Apple. My target really is an indictment on the entire system, and not any company in particular.

rman726 said:

As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.

Click to expand...

So move to a country were patents are culturally irrelevant?

rman726 said:

I'm a fan of Apple, but I think it's pathetic that Apple (or Google) would buy patents to "hobble" their biggest competitor. The iPhone is a better phone because of the competition with Android. I have no problems with them protecting their own intellectual property like they are doing with Samsung and their blatant ripoff of the iPhone. But to buy patents for the sole purpose of hurting the competition is anti-competitive, and wrong IMO.

I do realize that in the end, it's not really Apple's fault and that they are just playing by the rules of the game. If they hadn't ponied up the $2B, then Google would have done the same to "hobble" Apple. So I don't blame Apple entirely, and instead blame the entire environment created by the awful existing system. But in the end, the consumers lose, which sucks.

Click to expand...

Apple hobble Android?... What do you think Google was trying to do to Apple with a bid of there own? As sad as it seems this is a form competition.

So forget about how good your product is, in today's business world makes sure you have patents galore.
Sad to see this is what competition has come down to, but that the world we have built.

rman726 said:

As I said, in the end, I don't really blame Apple; because I know exactly what you said would happen. I just think it's a ****** system where nobody but the patent companies win.




As stated above, I do understand how the business world works. The mobile phone business is a cutthroat business, and as such I completely understand why Apple did what they did. The thing that gets me is that while I'm fine with a company protecting what is theirs; I just don't like the idea of buying off patents for the sole purpose of hobbling the competition. I just think the consumers would be better off if Nortel wasn't able to sell off their patents to companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, etc...

It's nothing against Apple, because as I stated, I like Apple. My target really is an indictment on the entire system, and not any company in particular.

Click to expand...

And who would you have liked them to sell it to, and what do you think they would have done. A patent is an asset and it can be sold off just like any other asset, I know lots of people don't like it but this is the now and future of international and domestic business, so take a class or two if your getting your MBA you will see plenty of it if you want to be top dog.

kiljoy616 said:

And who would you have liked them to sell it to, and what do you think they would have done. A patent is an asset and it can be sold off just like any other asset, I know lots of people don't like it but this is the now and future of international and domestic business, so take a class or two if your getting your MBA you will see plenty of it if you want to be top dog.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of how the system works. I just think it sucks for the consumers and does nothing but drive up prices. Why? I'll tell you a little secret: Steve Jobs' name might be on the signature line for that $2B wire transfer, but it might as well be your name and mine, because it's the consumers paying for it in the end.

Anti-Trust Garbage

The part of the article that infuriated me was the government sticking its nose into the bidding. The government has no business telling a company whether or not it can buy something. For them to allow Google and Apple to bid is a joke. The government trying to protect us from Apple and Google is the height of stupidity. What happens when a technology is forced to be shared is a higher price and less innovation for the customer. If either of the companies win the bid, and Apple did in this case, it will give them a momentary lead but by losing the bid Google will take the money that they did not spend on the bid, plow it into R&D and will probably come out with a better product than Apple bought. That is how the free market works when allowed to work freely. The anti-trust is nothing more than socialism and feel good politics rolled into one. That is another part of the federal budget that needs to be eliminated.

I don't think Apple will be able to use these patents to "hobble Android," nor do I think that was the intent in buying them regardless of whatever Reuter's source claims. I consider this to be more of a defensive thing, to protect Apple and this new market of mobile phones and tablets from the ever-increasing number of patent trolls out there. Besides, I think there would be an obvious case of anti-competitive behavior were Apple to wield these things against Android. At best, Apple will be able to turn a few bucks of every Android phone sold due to licensing.

IOW, this is a lot of news about something that basically adds up to not much.

more nonsense - first - everyone was interviewed by the government before they could bid to determine their intentions and they had a simple statement after the bidding to everyone involved.

"US Government Antitrust Division will continue to review any anticompetitive issues that could arise once an agreement is made"

Nothing will come of this against Android - Sony Ericsson has every Smartphone running Android right now and SONY has 2 Android tablets on bat - and they part of the group.

ptysell said:

Ya.....being the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen is a real negative.

(Hint: Out patent system is why America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen)

Click to expand...

I want to see proof that "America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen". Otherwise I call that total BS. I'm sure per capita countries like Australia and the UK are just as innovative. If not more so.

So provide some facts before you blurt out stuff like that.

All this crap about patents and lawsuits over these smartphones makes me want to do one thing...

Go back to a normal cell phone.

the8thark said:

I want to see proof that "America is the most innovative culture this planet has ever seen". Otherwise I call that total BS. I'm sure per capita countries like Australia and the UK are just as innovative. If not more so.

So provide some facts before you blurt out stuff like that.

Click to expand...

Per capita? He didn't say per capita. And I doubt your assertion in any case.

cmaier said:

Per capita? He didn't say per capita. And I doubt your assertion in any case.

Click to expand...

Ok prove it. Lets see the evidence to back up your claim.

the8thark said:

Ok prove it. Lets see the evidence to back up your claim.

Click to expand...

Where did I make a claim, big guy? All I did was doubt your claim.

Edit: here - I'll back up the other guy's claim: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation

US is #1. UK is 4 and Australia 5.