Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 3, 2011, 05:20 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
U.S. Antitrust Regulators Concerned Over Apple's Interest in Nortel Patents






Last December, it was revealed that Apple was among the parties interested in bidding on a huge trove of patents from Nortel Networks that had been placed up for auction. While group of over 6,000 patents covers a wide variety of areas, Apple was thought to be primarily interested in those patents related to LTE and other mobile technologies.

Competition for the patents has been heating up, with Google having launched the first salvo with an opening bid of $900 million for the entire portfolio of patents. According to The Wall Street Journal, federal antitrust regulators had initially expressed concern over Google's bid, but have since had their concerns satisfied. They do, however, continue to have concerns about Apple should it decide to officially submit a bid for the patents.
Quote:
The agency has greater concerns about another possible bidder, Apple Inc., which has often asserted intellectual property rights against other companies. Apple has been in talks with the Justice Department to address its concerns, those people said.

Apple didn't respond to a request for comment.
Regulators have expressed concern over such a significant batch of intellectually being used by acquirers attempting to consolidate control of critical technologies, thereby stifling innovation.

The official auction for the Nortel patents is scheduled for June 20th, with Google, Apple, and Research in Motion all reportedly interested in participating in the process.

Article Link: U.S. Antitrust Regulators Concerned Over Apple's Interest in Nortel Patents
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 05:46 PM   #2
nagromme
macrumors G5
 
nagromme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Good that they’re considering these things.... Although from the outside, it sounds like similar logic should make them worry about anyone BUT Apple getting the patents, because Apple is so often targeted BY patent suits. Letting someone other than Apple have them could stifle innovation!

(Especially when so much of other companies’ mobile “innovation” is just following Apple’s lead these days, and would not have happened without Apple doing it first.)
nagromme is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 06:06 PM   #3
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Apple has a history of not letting other companies use the patents that could be another huge reason not to let them have them.
Rodimus Prime is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 06:09 PM   #4
tbrinkma
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
If they really want to stop patent holders from stifling innovation, they'll do something about the patent holding companies that do *nothing* except buy patents and sue over possible infringement.

Personally, I think most (if not all) of the current patent & copyright ills could be solved by having them be non-transferable. The author/inventor gets the copyright, and cannot sell/gift/transfer ownership of it. They'd still be able license the use of it, and employment contracts could include a perpetual licenses for copyrights/patents created as part of the employee's job duties, but it would pretty much put an end to patent trolls, and corporations lobbying for ever longer and greater control over them.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 06:22 PM   #5
vvswarup
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Apple has a history of not letting other companies use the patents that could be another huge reason not to let them have them.
That's the whole point of a patent. It gives the owner of the patent the "exclusive right" to the patented product.
vvswarup is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 06:54 PM   #6
zachkolk
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: America
Why Care

Why do Antitrust Regulators even exist? If a company wants to make more profits by buying up some patents then let them do it. If said company does something immoral/something the public doesn't like, then they wont buy their products & the company has to change. It's called capitalism. Start regulating something that needs regulating, like the borders.
zachkolk is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 07:04 PM   #7
UTclassof89
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachkolk View Post
If said company does something immoral/something the public doesn't like, then they wont buy their products & the company has to change. It's called capitalism.
I'm guessing you're surfing MacRumors instead of paying attention in History Class....
__________________
Flash will be around a lot longer than Steve Jobs will.
UTclassof89 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 07:16 PM   #8
econgeek
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTclassof89 View Post
I'm guessing you're surfing MacRumors instead of paying attention in History Class....
History is often written by the winners, and in politics, the "winners" are often scumbags who pass evil laws and get away with it because the people are distracted by some other issue: EG: PATRIOT Act.

The LAW of the land is the Constitution, and while patents are enshrined in the Constitution, there is no provision in the enumerated powers for the existence of Anti-Trust laws.

Thus if you study the law, and particularly history as it pertains to the creation of the constitution and the powers that it grants the government, you see that the founding fathers were pretty clear on the matter.

There's no point in smugly implying your opponent hasn't studied history, when you don't provide any reason or argument for your side. If your position is more defensible than his, why not argue the position, rather than to the person?

PS- Your sig "Flash will be around a lot longer than Steve Jobs will" is quite offensive, and given that this is MacRumors, makes me wonder if you're trolling? IF not, put up an argument and some facts next time.
__________________
Apple is, as always, dragging them kicking and screaming into the future. They hate it now, but when Apple replaces it, they'll be claim it was great.
econgeek is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 07:42 PM   #9
2 Replies
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
IMO, patents should not be transferable.
If a company owns rights to a patent, and it cannot make it on it's own then said IP should become public domain immediately.

Or in the VERY LEAST, the selling of patents shouldn't be allowed.
(So okay... if you buy the entire company, you get the patent with it's existing expiry. But no company should be able to toss up a bunch of patents then sell them.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by econgeek View Post
History is often written by the winners, and in politics, the "winners" are often scumbags who pass evil laws and get away with it because the people are distracted by some other issue
You have a pretty obvious logical fallacy there.

(just saying)

Last edited by Mitthrawnuruodo; Jun 4, 2011 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Merging posts, please use MULTIQUOTE and/or EDIT...
2 Replies is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 08:17 PM   #10
*LTD*
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Apple has a history of not letting other companies use the patents that could be another huge reason not to let them have them.
Yes, that's the point of patents. They provide exclusive ownership of, and exclusive rights to, whatever they describe.
*LTD* is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 08:19 PM   #11
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
That's the whole point of a patent. It gives the owner of the patent the "exclusive right" to the patented product.
problem come is many of those patents in that group could cause major problems for the industry if they are not licences out and given Apple history that is a valid enough reason for the regulators to not allow Apple to have them.

But you are right about that is the point of patents but Apple history says they should not be allowed to have this block.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 08:23 PM   #12
*LTD*
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
problem come is many of those patents in that group could cause major problems for the industry if they are not licences out and given Apple history that is a valid enough reason for the regulators to not allow Apple to have them.
Patent owners are not required to license anything out to anyone. It's their property. The fact that the patents might or might not be related to "important" technology is merely incidental. Property is property. This isn't state-run enterprise.
*LTD* is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 08:41 PM   #13
FlameofAnor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
They're not worried about Google, but they are worried about Apple....... OK.
FlameofAnor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:01 PM   #14
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
Patent owners are not required to license anything out to anyone. It's their property. The fact that the patents might or might not be related to "important" technology is merely incidental. Property is property. This isn't state-run enterprise.
please look up how Anti-trust works.
Your arguments currently are not valid at this point.
Rodimus Prime is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:36 PM   #15
*LTD*
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
please look up how Anti-trust works.
Your arguments currently are not valid at this point.
Tell me "how Anti-trust works."

We all know how it works, by the way. The question is whether regulations apply here (or *should* apply) and if so, to what degree.

The argument is that any one company owning these patents runs the risk of stifling innovation. Does that include the original patent holder (not simply in this case but in general)? If I'm not mistaken we're just seeing x-amount of patents moving from one company to another. If Nortel were still in regular operation and would still hold all those patents, with powers to litigate accordingly, wouldn't the same worries arise?

The interesting part is, and this is likely not applicable anyway, is that they're worried about Apple stifling innovation (and others in general) when Apple is really the one doing most of the innovating, at least at the consumer level.

Last edited by *LTD*; Jun 3, 2011 at 09:45 PM.
*LTD* is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:43 PM   #16
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
Tell me "how Anti-trust works."

We all know how it works, by the way. The question is whether regulations apply here (or *should* apply) and if so, to what degree.

The argument is that any one company owning these patents runs the risk of stifling innovation. Does that include the original patent holder (not simply in this case but in general)? If I'm not mistaken we're just seeing x-amount of patents moving from one company to another. If Nortel were still in regular operation and would still hold all those patents, with powers to litigate accordingly, wouldn't the same worries arise?

The interesting part is, and this is likely not applicable anyway, is that they're worried about Apple stifling innovation (and others in general) when Apple is really the one doing most of the innovating, at least at the consumer level.
Difference is if just Apple controls them you have Apple long LONG history of not licencing out their IP for others to use. Apple has a history of blocking others.

Google case is more they have a history of letting other use their IP. So if lets say Google owns them it does not effect Apple inventing stuff. It just means Apple competitors can use the same IP as well.

If Apple owns them only Apple will use them and no one else will be allowed. This hurts innovations in the long run.
Now the first method screws Apple because Apple does not know how to play fair.
Rodimus Prime is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:46 PM   #17
mdriftmeyer
macrumors 68020
 
mdriftmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
That's the whole point of a patent. It gives the owner of the patent the "exclusive right" to the patented product.
Isn't it great you have to explain the definition of patents, on a weekly basis?
mdriftmeyer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:54 PM   #18
*LTD*
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Difference is if just Apple controls them you have Apple long LONG history of not licencing out their IP for others to use. Apple has a history of blocking others.

Google case is more they have a history of letting other use their IP. So if lets say Google owns them it does not effect Apple inventing stuff. It just means Apple competitors can use the same IP as well.

If Apple owns them only Apple will use them and no one else will be allowed. This hurts innovations in the long run.
Now the first method screws Apple because Apple does not know how to play fair.
So Apple shouldn't get them because they'll end up using legally available mechanisms to protect them? Because they might exercise their rights?

Is this the argument?

OF COURSE Apple will not simply allow others to use them like a free-for-all. Others will have to pay licensing fees, IF Apple licenses them out at all. But that's their prerogative. What sort of precedent will that set, though? If some governing body determines based on this or that arbitrary set of conditions that your patents just so happen to be "important" ones, then you lose the very freedom otherwise granted to you by law to defend them?

How is this supposed to work?

Doesn't distributing these patents or somehow arbitrarily rendering them public domain *also* stifle innovation? If Apple held all these lovely patents then wouldn't others take some initiative and attempt to come up with better alternatives? But I fear this might be asking too much of the competition . . .

Seems this also has the by-product of giving the competition a helping hand.

Last edited by *LTD*; Jun 3, 2011 at 09:59 PM.
*LTD* is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 09:58 PM   #19
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
So Apple shouldn't get them because they'll end up using legally available mechanisms to protect them?

Is this the argument?

OF COURSE Apple will not simply allow others to use them like a free-for-all. Others will have to pay licensing fees, IF Apple licenses them out at all. But that's their prerogative. What sort of precedent will that set, though? If some governing body determines based on this or that arbitrary set of conditions that your patents just so happen to be "important" ones, then you lose the very freedom otherwise granted to you by law to defend them?

How is this supposed to work?

Doesn't distributing these patents or somehow arbitrarily rendering them public domain *also* stifle innovation? If Apple held all these lovely patents then wouldn't others take some initiative and attempt to come up with better alternatives? But I fear this might be asking too much of the competition . . .

Seems this also has the by-product of giving the competition a helping hand.

And we are back to Anti-trust. Remember when you are one of the big players the rules are very different. Apple getting control is much more likely to hurt innovations than others having control. Mix that 6k with what else they more than likely own and you have some real issues.
.
Please leave the church the Church of Apple for a while so you can understand the problem at hand.
Rodimus Prime is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 10:08 PM   #20
*LTD*
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
And we are back to Anti-trust. Remember when you are one of the big players the rules are very different. Apple getting control is much more likely to hurt innovations than others having control. Mix that 6k with what else they more than likely own and you have some real issues.
.
Please leave the church the Church of Apple for a while so you can understand the problem at hand.
The question is *not* about getting control. Getting control is fine. It's whether the new holder (or the original one?) *abuses* their control.

I'm sorry but patent holders protecting their property under the law - no matter how fervently - hardly rises to the level of abuse.

This anti-trust initiative, however, *is* ripe for abuse (based on just what's presented in the article, mind you.) It would be interesting to see the conditions that determine whether someone should lose control of their patents based on the assumption that they might seek to protect them under law at some point. Does it take only infrequent litigation to raise eyebrows? Once a year? Twice a year? Or are we talking several times in six months? This all seems very nebulous. Or maybe we don't have all the information. And I'm not just talking about Apple here but how this might affect everyone.

Do these same anti-trust initiatives apply to the *original* patent holder as well? For instance, if at some point Nortel would have been more litigious, or if they were in operation today and would be more litigious with their patents, would they be subject to loss of control of the patents they own?
*LTD* is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 11:01 PM   #21
vvswarup
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
And we are back to Anti-trust. Remember when you are one of the big players the rules are very different. Apple getting control is much more likely to hurt innovations than others having control. Mix that 6k with what else they more than likely own and you have some real issues.
.
Please leave the church the Church of Apple for a while so you can understand the problem at hand.
Actually, I think you should leave the Church of Google for good so you can understand that business is a dog-eat-dog world.

Apple has sued for patent infringement only to protect their own product in the market. In my book, that's a fair use of patents. If a company hoards patents with no intention of actually using them to put a product on the market, that's unfair. But when a company (XYZ) has a product out on the market and competitors are using patented technologies in those products without licensing them, then XYZ has every right to sue.
vvswarup is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 11:27 PM   #22
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Of course they're concerned about Apple, Apple doesn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on campaign contributions to the scumbag politicians who appoint these pencil pushers.

The US Government has no right to decide who or what business entity can buy something available in a public auction. If the buyer would later use the property they acquire in an illegal manner, that can be investigated and prosecuted, but they can't tell someone they're excluded because they don't like something about the way they do business.

In granting permissions to bid on these patents, the government is granting favor to one company over another. They are giving some companies a greater opportunity than others. That is unconstitutional in every way.

If the government has been given ownership of these patents and wants to divest them, then they need to hold a truly public auction, in which any interested party has the opportunity to bid.
Mak47 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 11:31 PM   #23
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Apple has a history of not letting other companies use the patents that could be another huge reason not to let them have them.
Exactly. Some companies would simply use the patents to receive royalties and/or carve out standards, while some would use them as a weapon. Regulators would prefer a new owner that had a history of sharing.

Have any of the Apple patent lawsuits against other companies ever stated that Apple offered fair license fees and were turned down? Or did they just want to keep the technology solely to themselves?

Other companies license their patent holdings, which gives them a fair return for their investment while also not stifling competing products.

For example, Microsoft licensed their business critical Exchange ActiveSync to Google and Apple for their phones, even though that helped level the playing field.
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 11:41 PM   #24
Hastings101
macrumors 68000
 
Hastings101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: blargh
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post
(Especially when so much of other companies’ mobile “innovation” is just following Apple’s lead these days, and would not have happened without Apple doing it first.)
Most of Apple's "innovation" is just following what those before it did and improving on it. That's pretty much what the whole industry is - taking what does well before you (or sometimes not so well) and making it better.
__________________
Please use
continuous
text
Hastings101 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2011, 11:42 PM   #25
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Difference is if just Apple controls them you have Apple long LONG history of not licencing out their IP for others to use. Apple has a history of blocking others.

Google case is more they have a history of letting other use their IP. So if lets say Google owns them it does not effect Apple inventing stuff. It just means Apple competitors can use the same IP as well.

If Apple owns them only Apple will use them and no one else will be allowed. This hurts innovations in the long run.
Now the first method screws Apple because Apple does not know how to play fair.
Why should Apple (or anyone) be expected to license out their IP? It belongs to them. They expended the time, money and resources to develop it--or at least bought it according to the rule of law.

Punishing Apple for not licensing out IP is ludicrous.

I have a really nice TV, I worked hard to earn the money to buy it and I assume the costs to maintain it and provide it with programming. My neighbors unfortunately do not have nice TV's, they choose to invest their money in other ways.

Am I expected to share my property with my neighbors? Will I be told by the government that I cannot buy a really nice sound system to make my TV better until I've first shared it with my neighbors who don't have one of their own? It's my property and I have the right to do with it what I like. The same goes for Apple and their IP, as well as any other company.

If one company is forced to share their innovations with other companies who
aren't able or willing to innovate on their own--then innovation suffers. Why invest in R&D at all if I know that Apple will soon be forced to let me use their stuff?
Mak47 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Italian Regulators Investigating Apple and Others Over 'Freemium' App Pricing Model MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 74 May 25, 2014 01:23 AM
Huawei Settles with Apple/Microsoft 'Rockstar Consortium' Over Nortel Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 9 Jan 24, 2014 03:27 PM
Apple Fined by Taiwanese Regulators Over iPhone Price Fixing MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 29 Dec 29, 2013 12:24 PM
Apple/Microsoft 'Rockstar Consortium' Sues Google, Others Over Nortel Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 92 Nov 4, 2013 06:03 PM
EU Regulators Questioning Carriers Over Apple's iPhone Contract Demands MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 86 May 29, 2013 03:03 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC