The people innovating aren't the ones that are being distracted so its not like they gain some capacity by the patent lawsuits stopping.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Patent War Against Android May Lead to Settlements Under Tim Cook's Influence
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The people innovating aren't the ones that are being distracted so its not like they gain some capacity by the patent lawsuits stopping.
Please provide your evidence as to how consumers are being hurt here.
If there is no protection of intellectual property, then people freely steal, thus R&D costs become a waste of budget. *This means innovation stagnates as no company wants to be "that guy" that throws away billions when others will simply copy and paste. *Are you familiar with the emerging China market at all, and the fatalities the lack of intellectual property poses?
Right, patents DRIVE innovation in that they FORCE companies to derive their own technology rather than stealing. For a company that RELIES on innovation (Apple), this protection of their intellectual property is highly beneficial, as they don't steal, thus they flourish. This fierce technology competition vastly improves consumer's choices.
With all respect, I don't think you can compare whichever software company you work(ed) for to Apple. Apple has a diligent and aggressive law division that doesn't muck up the management's day to day responsibilities. Given their financial standing, Apple has a hefty war chest of cash to combat any patent violators with. While I can see where you are coming from given your personal experiences, Apple truly is in it's own category that seems to easily defy "the norm". Any losses attributed to legal warfare is certainly recouped to a larger degree due to licensing or winning revenue as a result of competitors stealing patented technology.
Which pisses me off, independent of consideration for you or me.
I predict frames and pixel doubling and halving.
Yes, it must bother the fans that Windows 7 has far better support for resolution independence than Apple IOS/OSX.
Win7 is still far from perfect, but basically changing one setting in the preferences makes it pretty reasonable. (And, OMG, if you change the setting to "200%" instead of "160%" you've got Apple's pixel doubling.)
I change from the default for two systems that I have:
- a Lenovo laptop with a 15" 1920x1200 display
- my HTPC on the 52" XBR so that I don't need to go grab my glasses to mount BD rips
Last edited:
So you are basically saying that no one really knows who gets credit for the design. *shrug*
Never claimed my company is faintly close to Apple's. I can assure you thought that it is naive to think that their management doesn't spend at least some time on it even with a dedicated legal team. And it sounds like Cook may feel the same way since Apple appears to moving away from Jobs scorched earth policy.
I think it might be too late for Apple to try licensing now. Some major companies aren't interested, because they smell victory.
As the article points out (I presume everyone who is posting in this thread has read the full article?), Apple's results haven't been that great. Worse, some patents are likely to be invalidated, rendering them worthless for licensing or lawsuits.
Samsung's CEO recently said they weren't going to back down for a couple of reasons. One is that they don't believe anyone should own the rights to basic shapes. Another is that they believe that Apple's attacks have resulted in very rewarding free publicity for their products which they'd otherwise not have... plus Samsung is now regarded as the underdog instead of Apple.
Of all people, Jobs should've realized that directly attacking the competition can backfire. When he left Apple to build NeXT, he also took much of Apple's best talent. Apple was furious and sued NeXT. All that ended up happening was that the world took more note of NeXT, as it was clear that Apple was worried about them. Apple vs. Samsung seems a repeat of that outcome.
As the article points out (I presume everyone who is posting in this thread has read the full article?), Apple's results haven't been that great. Worse, some patents are likely to be invalidated, rendering them worthless for licensing or lawsuits.
Samsung's CEO recently said they weren't going to back down for a couple of reasons. One is that they don't believe anyone should own the rights to basic shapes. Another is that they believe that Apple's attacks have resulted in very rewarding free publicity for their products which they'd otherwise not have... plus Samsung is now regarded as the underdog instead of Apple.
Of all people, Jobs should've realized that directly attacking the competition can backfire. When he left Apple to build NeXT, he also took much of Apple's best talent. Apple was furious and sued NeXT. All that ended up happening was that the world took more note of NeXT, as it was clear that Apple was worried about them. Apple vs. Samsung seems a repeat of that outcome.
No, I'm saying that Samsung gets credit - they're manufacturing the screens for now. Samsung engineered and manufactured the screens to the buyer's (Apple's) specs.
Once (if?) LG and Sharp come online with acceptable screens ("acceptable" in all of quality, volume and price), then they'll get the credit as well.
______
My car (a European sports sedan) has a Bosch LH-Jetronic computerized fuel injection system with a Hitzdraht-LuftMassenmesser 2 air mass sensor and controller.
Other cars from other manufacturers used the same Bosch fuel injection unit - because it was state of the art.
My carmaker didn't design the fuel injection unit, nor manufacture it. They contracted to get the best unit on the market at the time. The fans of my carmaker didn't fantasize that my carmaker had designed the fuel injection unit - they realized that it was a simple purchase of the best available unit on the market, and one that other carmakers were also buying.
Similarly, Apple is neither designing nor manufacturing displays - they're requesting bids on a particular set of specs and buying from any and all manufacturers that can meet the specs.
The basic design was definitely not Apple's.
The SHA (Super High Aperture) display being made was invented by one of Sharp's engineers in Japan over a decade ago.
Reportedly up to a quarter of high resolution screens use the technology, but for years it was considered difficult and expensive to make.
I did a few hours of research and found that another engineer named John Zhong did SHA research for a US company about the same time, then later for LG/Philips, and finally went to work at Apple. However, I cannot find any SHA design patents per se for Apple.
So it's unknown right now what additions, if any, that Apple employee might have come up with for a display that was invented long ago.
One possibility from looking at their patents, is that their engineer came up with a cheaper way to manufacture it (e.g. an easier way to sputter circuit traces), thus enabling Apple to use it in their iPad.
Last edited:
Sorry, but you've lost me. What does scaling an image for a printer have to do with resolution independence for a display?
No, he settled with MS because he knew if he didnt Apple would have folded faster than myspace. Those were some desperate times for Apple when they were near extinction.
----------
Mr Cook sees the long term and knows Apple is just going to win in Sales. What other companies are innovating? Everyone just seems to continue copying apple. IE- next year other tablets will have retina displays... wow.
Are you going to complain when Samsung comes out with 'Retina Display' ??
Totally agree. Apple is slightly different from say, 1-2 years ago. But as far as I can tell it is retaining all of its positive qualities, while making improvements. They seem to be genuinely raising the bar for labor/environmental standards.They're being a wee bit nicer to their employees. They're increasing transparency a bit (e.g. naming suppliers) while maintaining product secrecy - at least no leaks worse than under Steve's watch.
While Apple should defend its intellectual property, even this Apple fan was getting a little tired of all the lawsuits. Good on them if they can work out some licensing deal and put the lawyers away for a little bit.
My final judgement will probably come with the next big, new product launch (e.g. revamped Apple TV or the successor to OS X). Those were the times when Jobs truly shined. More than any other single person in the industry, he had the ability to see the future, make it happen, and declare "it is good" at debut.
Never as many as they are now, never so frivolous and absurd as they are now. It'd be like Apple suing HP because it has the letter P in it, too.
----------
Seriously... display resolution increases every year, Apple just has the market ability to price a device with the highest one at the moment.
My reading was that it was and is Sharp's IP, but Apple worked with them to license the technology to LG and Samsung, and Samsung was able to launch their manufacturing line earlier than the other two. This actually makes sense as Apple isn't keen on single sourcing, for obvious reasons.
The question then becomes when are the HiDpi screens for the MBP's going to arrive and will this be the technology?
There isn't any victory to be had by any party. It's a continuum, and Apple is hardly going to stop defending its IP, nor are the other parties.
Motorola was able to shut down Push Notification on Apple devices in Germany, but otherwise wasn't successful with injunctive relief. Motorola's threat to go nuclear with FRANDed IP looks to have stirred up European oversight in Apple's and Microsoft's favor. Similarly for Samsung FRANDed IP.
HTC was shot down on graphics tech that they purchased from a company owned by it's parent company.
If anything, Apple has had some small wins that required Samsung to alter certain UI functionality, but otherwise, MS seems to be picking up all the cash on the table in licensing.
What the future holds for Android is pretty much the status quo for today; Google wins lots of activations, but it really isn't much of a cash cow for any party except for Samsung.
Which in itself is quite humorous as Apple is probably winning over 75% of the profits in the industry, and Samsung winning over 75% of what is left, with everyone else collectively comprising less than 10% of the profits.
That's what a win looks like.
In other words, you have come to know and love the worst patent troll in the industry?
It should be noted that most of those patents are trivial design or software patents and hardly worthy of a patent claim. It's a good thing that most countries still do not grant patents on software, so this insanity is mostly a US phenomenon. Settling on some of those dubious claims is probably just cheaper than fighting them in court. And that alone demonstrates why the patent system should be abolished.
I agree that in some cases, intellectual property needs protected ... but I think in recent times, the issues have become tit for tat playground squabble stuff ... which a lot of consumers are seeing as petty ... possibly turning users away.
I also think that it can lead to a stagnation of development and progress ... there are sometimes only so many ways to do things, and to patent stuff that blocks everything else out is a hinderence rather than a benefit.
If there are settlements under Tim Cook that calms all this nonsense down and lets companies develop better phones for us all, then I'm all for it.
Whilst Apple may be the leader, it needs competition to stay ahead of so it doesnt rest on its laurels.
I also think that it can lead to a stagnation of development and progress ... there are sometimes only so many ways to do things, and to patent stuff that blocks everything else out is a hinderence rather than a benefit.
If there are settlements under Tim Cook that calms all this nonsense down and lets companies develop better phones for us all, then I'm all for it.
Whilst Apple may be the leader, it needs competition to stay ahead of so it doesnt rest on its laurels.
Lawyers never want to go to court, they will always opt for a resonable settlement over rolling the dice in a court room
No matter how you misrepresent Apple's position in the late 1990s, the reason why they couldn't win that lawsuit against Microsoft was that someone had signed contracts that Microsoft could legally exploit to do the copying that they did. (That was before people learned the hard way how to deal with Microsoft). Apple has learned a harsh lesson from that. On the other hand, the reason why Microsoft _had_ to support Apple was that they received stolen Quicktime code from a contractor. To avoid misunderstandings, it is most likely that Microsoft paid that contractor for newly written code with the same functionality as Quicktime, but that wasn't what they received.
The lawsuit frenzy was Jobs' baby.
It is ridiculous and petty as well as paranoid.
It's time to move on and bury that pointless feud in Jobs' grave.
It is ridiculous and petty as well as paranoid.
It's time to move on and bury that pointless feud in Jobs' grave.