An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry

craftytony · Oct 8, 2012

samcraig said:
A lot of your examples have already been discussed to death - that even Apple copied the idea from elsewhere.

I do a lot of graphic design work. I would be pissed as hell if my design were stolen. However - I wouldn't think for a second that, for example, the shape of my icon was "mine" unless it was REALLY unique. Rounded corners isn't unique enough.

If I created an icon for an audio recording app and I used an old style microphone - I wouldn't be pissed that others did something similar because the fact is - it's pretty standard.

Now - if you design some cool icon that has never been done before and is truly unique - then sure - be pissed.

But, for example - Apple suing everyone and their grandmother who happens to have an actual APPLE as part of their logo is just ridiculous.

The reason people think Samsung has a right regarding patents and their technologies is because even if it's mandatory to have in a phone these days - it's something of real substance.

Equating a piece of 3G tech (for example) patent vs a rectangle with rounded corners is silly anyway. Two different beasts.

Well said, but I don't think Apple sued because of the shape of their icons? And when you look at the old time microphone, you see that it's not just the fact it's an "old time" microphone, the colors and shading are also almost exact, and even a similar dark background. They could have changed so many things to differentiate themselves, yet they went with the look Apple had done. Overall, after seeing the evidence, there wasn't just one way Samsung copied apple, it was apparent in many differant ways.

And yes, it is probably not right for Apple to sue over logos/names related to an apple, but would this not be similar to Proview suing apple in regards to the name "iPad"? I can see why Apple does the same.

I think Samsung would have a right to sue in regards to 4g technology if apple infringed without first looking to license said technology. But, it looks like Apple got themselves 4g patents of their own, so it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

iSee · Oct 8, 2012

lazard said:
Even if you disregard the lawsuits, Apple doesn't spend much of their cash on R&D.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/mone...-research-and-development-spending/53673126/1

Unlike all of its competitors, Apple focuses on a small set of products lines with a small number of models within each line. It might be interesting to figure out Apple's R&D spending per product line or per model vs. various competitors.

Rodimus Prime · Oct 8, 2012

just goes to prove Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

This just proves it.

craftytony · Oct 8, 2012

Rodimus Prime said:
just goes to prove Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

This just proves it.

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."

Rogifan · Oct 8, 2012

This graphic from Patently Apple on number of patent filings in 2001 is interesting. Apple made the list at #39 while Samsung was second. Reading some of these stories though you'd think Apple was the #1 patent filer in the world.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...tent-expert-presents-negative-apple-spin.html

kas23 · Oct 8, 2012

lazard said:
Even if you disregard the lawsuits, Apple doesn't spend much of their cash on R&D.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/mone...-research-and-development-spending/53673126/1

Yes, I know. They were never a company that spends much on innovation. They still pull it off somehow. Just imagine if they did put a monetary effort towards R & D...

shulerg · Oct 8, 2012

theBB said:
Some people prefer the courts apply the existing law rather than invent their own limitations or expansions.

We are not in a new or grayer area. Tech companies have ben living with patents for more than a century and patent fights heat up in fields with rapid progress. For example, Avation during the turn of the previous century. Patent trolls are a new business model, but neither Apple, nor Google, nor Samsung is a patent troll and that is the biggest fight at the moment.

Setting precedent does not equal inventing "their own limitations or expansions." It's called interpreting the law.

iGrip · Oct 8, 2012

Tiger8 said:
Not exactly.

Apple w/patents is like that high school nerd who got bullied in his freshman year, started working out and bulking up over the summer, and came back as the bully next fall.

To be bullied or to be the bully? I think everyone would chose the latter

Or one could choose to be neither. But I guess that is one way in which some would Think Different.

----------

Tones2 said:
Um, that's exactly what Steve Jobs told his employees to do, apparantly, as quoted in the OP: "His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool,"

That sounds like an abuse of the patent system to me. Apple has patented all sorts of wacky ****, which wastes taxpayer's resources.

Rogifan · Oct 8, 2012

Seems to me this is more about the NY Times generating page hits than the patent system. Just like their stories about Foxconn. Writing stories about Apple is good click bait.

Dr McKay · Oct 8, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
Methinks you don't know what that term means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

Apple have patented things that they said they'd never make. They said they'd never ever make a touchscreen computer because it doesn't work, and then patented a touchscreen iMac.

Thunderhawks · Oct 8, 2012

yankinwaoz said:
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.

So Dyson decided to start his own vacuum cleaner company and the rest is history.

However, in retrospect, the executives at Hoover and the others say they wish they had purchased Dyson's idea back when he offered not. Not because they wanted to make such a cleaner. But only to suppress it and keep the technology off the market.

Modern companies learned from Hoover's mistake, and now often buy disruptive technology companies simply to get the patents and sit on them. The patent system has been flipped on its head. It now stifles innovation instead of encouraging it. And in the end, the consumers get less choices.

And , if you now check, they all copied Dyson.

chrmjenkins · Oct 8, 2012

Dr McKay said:
Apple have patented things that they said they'd never make. They said they'd never ever make a touchscreen computer because it doesn't work, and then patented a touchscreen iMac.

And Steve famously flip flopped on design decisions. He didn't want a 7" iPad and yet here it comes.

kdarling · Oct 8, 2012

tbrinkma said:
I'm interested in seeing some gadgets made using LiquidMetal (because Apple doesn't seem to be going anywhere with it at this stage). Can anybody point to an actual device

As far as phones go, Samsung had been using LiquidMetal for hinges and minor trim parts since 2002:

"Samsung teamed up with Liquidmetal Technologies to produce a super-thin LCD screen frame component for its innovative SCH-X199 mobile phone model. " - (Samsung Electronics Announces First Mobile Phone Incorporating Revolutionary Liquidmetal Alloy - 2002)

Samsung continued to use it for years afterwards:

Liquidmetal(R) Technologies (NASDAQ:LQMT) today announced that Samsung Electronics is utilizing high-strength Liquidmetal(R) alloys for the hinge housings of its new SCH-X850 mobile phone.

The SCH-X850 is the latest in a growing line of Samsung cell phone models featuring the revolutionary material in this critical-performance application. - 2004

Then, in 2008 Samsung sold a luxury $1800 dual-SIM phone called the "Ego" with a LiquidMetal chassis.

It was advertised as being extra scratch and damage resistant.

In 2010, Apple bought permanent exclusive rights to the consumer electronics use of LM, yet has done virtually nothing with those rights. Apparently they're content to simply deny others its use.

In the non-consumer-electronics fields, LM has been used in golf clubs, medical equipment, oil wells, along with military usage where a tough coating is needed.

Joesmith13245 · Oct 8, 2012

Tiger8 said:
You are not looking at the bright side: Several AMERICAN lawyers made hundreds of thousand - even millions, of dollars out of this patent war!

Our legal system is broken - the best lawyers always win, and the best lawyers are very expensive. I laugh when people say patent law should be fixed, it's a drop in a bucket of broken legal system.

If you think our(US) legal system is broken, go check out most third world countries.

theBB · Oct 8, 2012

HobeSoundDarryl said:
Right, the discussion is about changing the rules to make a better system. I'm suggesting that rule as a change to the "as is".

Sorry, I misread your comment then. There are many ways of ticking a box, we used it in our product, proving or disproving that in court will not make it any cheaper between big companies, as Apple, Google and Samsung surely are. Playing word games about what is really used and what counts as a product may be tougher for small companies, but they are already at a big disadvantage against the deep pocketed big rivals, I don't see the point of burying them even further.

----------

shulerg said:
Setting precedent does not equal inventing "their own limitations or expansions." It's called interpreting the law.

Yes, the last time they did a major interpretation, we got software and business method (e.g Amazon's one click purchase button) patents.

craftytony · Oct 8, 2012

kdarling said:
As far as phones go, Samsung had been using LiquidMetal for hinges and minor trim parts since 2002:

Samsung continued to use it for years afterwards:

Then, in 2008 Samsung sold a luxury $1800 dual-SIM phone called the "Ego" with a LiquidMetal chassis.

View attachment 367769

It was advertised as being extra scratch and damage resistant.

In 2010, Apple bought permanent exclusive rights to the consumer electronics use of LM, yet has done virtually nothing with those rights. Apparently they're content to simply deny others its use.

In the non-consumer-electronics fields, LM has been used in golf clubs, medical equipment, oil wells, along with military usage where a tough coating is needed.

Here is a quote from an article I read regarding this, so I wouldn't just assume apple is trying to deny others it's use:

"He said that it was unlikely that Apple would be able to make an entire product casing from Liquidmetal "in the near term". He said: "It's more likely in the form of a small component such as a hinge or bracket. A MacBook casing, such as a unibody, will take two to four more years to implement.

Mr Peker said Liquidmetal was not yet perfected and Apple would need to "spend on the order of $300 million to $500 million - and three to five years - to mature the technology before it can be used in large scale."

Original article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9243703/Apple-plans-breakthrough-product-made-from-Liquidmetal.html

scoobydoo99 · Oct 8, 2012

MacRumors said:
...takes a look at patents, examining how and why Apple has wielded them in what seems to be a never-ending series of lawsuits between the company and its competitors.
...

Really? The level of incompetence it takes to write that sentence is staggering. It is NOT "news" to figure out "how and why" Apple (or any company) defends patents. The statement reflects sheer stupidity.

theBB · Oct 8, 2012

Rodimus Prime said:
just goes to prove Apple is the worlds largest patent troll.

This just proves it.

Yeah, because, Apple has sued companies over patents it does not use... Umm, wait...

you people smh · Oct 8, 2012

MacRumors said:
The report also points to the massive costs involved in the patent industry, with Apple and Google now spending more on patent issues than on research and development.

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.

chrmjenkins · Oct 8, 2012

you people smh said:
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.

Yes, a company with 100 billion in cash on hand is not making updates to their product lines because they are spending millions on patent litigation.

Swift · Oct 8, 2012

ECUpirate44 said:
Agree 100%.

The copiers started it.

marksman · Oct 8, 2012

It is crazy that more is spent on patent litigation than r&d but jobs was right to make the move. The really monster that forced the bigger companies into this are the patent troll companies who just buy and collect patents for the soul purpose of suing those who actually make things.

They left apple and others with little choice but to patent everything to protect their investments and development. The unfortunate side effect is these big companies now target each other.

I wish there was an easy way to remove these patent portfolio trolls from the equation but much like the apple haters here they are cockroaches that are impossible to get rid of.

you people smh · Oct 8, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
Yes, a company with 100 billion in cash on hand is not making updates to their product lines because they are spending millions on patent litigation.

I never contended that. It says right in the article they are paying more for patents than R&D.

TableSyrup · Oct 8, 2012

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

iGrip · Oct 8, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
And Steve famously flip flopped on design decisions.

The funny thing is, he was right both times.

----------

kdarling said:
In 2010, Apple bought permanent exclusive rights to the consumer electronics use of LM, yet has done virtually nothing with those rights. Apparently they're content to simply deny others its use.

That is a Good Thing for the owners of both Apple and LiquidMetal. Do you think otherwise?

Apple knows that it made a profitable decision when they bought exclusive rights. There is no reason for consumers to object, given that Apple is the only company in the industry who innovates.

An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry

macrumors regular

macrumors 68040

macrumors G4

macrumors regular

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 603

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 68040

Suspended

macrumors 603

macrumors P6

macrumors regular

macrumors 68020

macrumors regular

Cancelled

macrumors 68020

macrumors regular

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68000

Our Staff