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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    In the seventh installment of its "iEconomy" series focused on Apple, The New York Times 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.

    The seven-page article offers an interesting glimpse into the patent process and traces Apple's aggressive efforts to a $100 million settlement paid by the company to Creative Technology over digital music players such as the iPod. As Apple worked toward launching the iPhone relatively soon after that 2006 settlement, Steve Jobs became committed to ensuring that Apple's innovations would be protected.
    The report describes how Apple's engineers were required to participate in monthly "invention disclosure sessions" in which they sat down with patent lawyers to discuss their efforts and determine whether any portions of their work would be patentable. 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.
    The New York Times shares several other anecdotes that help provide an overview of the patent landscape, including discussion of how Apple spent seven years shepherding what would become the "Siri patent" through numerous reviews before it was ultimately granted on the tenth try.

    Another story centers on voice recognition company Vlingo, which was forced to sell itself to competitor Nuance after it incurred millions of dollars in legal bills trying to defend itself from six lawsuits filed by Nuance, even though Vlingo was victorious in the one trial that made it to a jury decision. During that time, Siri, which had yet to be acquired by Apple, switched its allegiance from Vlingo to Nuance, and Vlingo's fate was sealed.

    Overall, the report provides a solid overview of some of the challenges facing the patent industry, where overworked patent examiners are tasked with quickly assessing the validity of numerous patent applications as teams of lawyers tweak and prod submissions until they can make their way through the system. Numerous proposals for revamping the patent system have been made, ranging from simply shortening the protection term of technology-related patents to tightening the criteria for patentability, but in the meantime technology companies will clearly continue to spend billions of dollars staking out and protecting their territory to the maximum extent possible.

    Article Link: An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    #2
    Apple knows something about patents? No idea.
     
  3. needfx, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

    macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #3
    while apple is becoming the biggest patent monster of them all
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    STiNG Operation

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Location:
    The Zoo
    #4
    Why are these people being rushed through these processes when the law suits last for months and months and months and months???
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    KdParker

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    #5
    They should just start a patent company - make some more money!
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    SPUY767

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    GA
    #6
    Like I've said before, if you're not demonstrably attempting to bring a patent to market after a certain number of years, that patent should just go public domain.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    ECUpirate44

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    NC
    #7
    The US patent system is completely broken. I like Mark Cuban's perspective of simply out performing the competition.
     
  8. macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #8
    Methinks you don't know what that term means.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #9
  10. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    #10
    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
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #11
    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,"
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #12
    great fun fact
     
  13. chrmjenkins, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

    macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #13
    You're misreading what he's stating. He's allowing the possibility they may change their decision to bring to market later, but don't want to find themselves in the position where they do to decide to bring it to market and they didn't file those patents.

    Case in point? Number of suits apple has filed over patents not in their products: 0.

    Also, the term "defensive" itself implies that it would help when they are being litigated against. But nevermind reality. Apple bad guy! GRRRR.
     
  14. macrumors demi-god

    SatManager

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #14
    The entire patent process has gotten out of hand for the tech and software industry. The idea that you can patent an idea and no one else can improve upon it seems wrong. Now I am not talking about patents that are required for industry interoperability, those are supposed to be covered by FRAND rules (though those seem to be pretty broad).

    A look and feel shouldn't be something that doesn't change. You can make it better, add a new feature, and you release it. Someone else takes that idea and then improves it. Saying 'this is my idea' and you can't copy the look or feel just doesn't seem right. It would be like someone first brings out the word processor and no one else can use the idea to improve upon it.

    Perhaps only give software patents only one year of protection after release before others can use the look and feel. It seems like many products are brought to market with "Patent Pending" anyway.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #15
    You being Outperforming then another Samsung comes along....


    How do you protect innovation?


    We tend to forget that we compete in a world market and every locality has different rules.
     
  16. HobeSoundDarryl, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012

    macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #16
    This is exactly right. No defensive patents would solve a lot of problems in this system. Patents were supposed to be about protecting innovations coming to market NOT protecting the status quo. As is, those with the deepest pockets can leverage an every growing library of "we may do nothing with these" patents to squelch any smaller firms trying to actually bring something innovative to market. Defensive patents pinch innovation among the small, reserving innovation for the large, rich companies.

    I can't blame Apple for playing the game by the rules (that actually cost them in that Creative patent scenario) but I do completely believe the game's rules should be changed. "No defensive patents" otherwise known as "use it or lose it" would be the first changed rule.

    Another: if someone can innovate a medical cure from a patented treatment, the innovator who cures the problem gets half of the original patent. In short, we need cures much more than we need pill-a-day treatments. However, the latter has a forever cash stream while the former is one big blast of revenue and then nearly nothing. Think about how much one-a-day treatment revenue is made on- say- Polio, Smallpox or the Plague. "As is" the rules are such that even if a pharma actually found a cure, they are most incentivized to back it down to a treatment. I wonder how many cures might be laying in a safe somewhere because the treatment is so much more profitable. A simple rule change biased to cures over treatments and we'll get cures again. And before someone labels conspiracy theorist, note how much better all of our tools have become in the last 20-30 years. Now, how many cures of substance have come out in the last 20-30 years? With all the fantastic technology, DNA analysis, medical advances, etc, we can't find a cure for anything?

    Another: software cannot be patented, only copyrighted. Else, eventually, you won't be able to code anything because a handful of companies will own all of the conceptual ways of doing anything. Software patents have always been dumb IMO.

    There are several other needed rule changes but you get the idea.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    #17
    Exactly, and that is pretty much the strategy all large corporations use.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #18
    great read, but I think software writing is kind of like music in its infinity
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    george-brooks

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #19
    Adequate and just legal protection for intellectual property is very important to me, but this whole issue is getting ridiculous. Ultimately all these companies are doing is squashing innovation.
     
  20. macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #20
    Agreed, and best I know, you can't patent music. Let copyright law cover software and save the patents for the "whole" product, not the electronic byte configuration and algorithms.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    #21
    It's too bad. That $20 billion could have built a nice factory or two in the United States and created thousands and thousands of jobs. I know it's necessary but it still makes it unfortunate.
     
  22. macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 24+.
    #22
    What about buying companies and never using their tech? Or doing it to keep a previously common product out of other people's new devices?

    Apple got an exclusive on LiquidMetal, for example, which prevents anyone else from using it in consumer electronics. Samsung had been using LM in phones since 2002, IIRC. Apple has used it to make what? SIM ejectors?

    Now Apple has taken over Authentec fingerprint sensors... which have been used in competing phones and PDAs for years.

    A few years ago, the rules for evaluating Patent Examiners changed to put more emphasis on quantity over quality. This is probably partly because the USPTO makes tons of money on patent applications. It's full self funded and the extra money goes into government coffers for other use.

    The rules also apparently changed to make it harder to reject an application than to allow it. So as an examiner, what would you do? Of course, after a while you'd allow the patent, figuring that it's a) less work and b) could be challenged later. Apple is known to game patent application rejections this way... filing minor changes over and over again until the examiner gives up. Slide to unlock is an example.

    For that matter, software patents only became allowed/ popular in the early 90s. Almost always they're about an idea, not a specific implementation, which is what makes us software developers unhappy.

    Upshot: just because you got a software patent approved, does not mean that's valid or unique. It often just means you filed first or at all.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego CA, USA
    #23
    Because the under-appreciated patent office is on a tight budget, and the patents that matter ultimately get tested in court.

    I'm strongly in favor of government protection of intellectual property, but I'd like to see the duration of the protection shortened to something like five to seven years. However, there should also be some way to get an extension on that term when the developer can show that a longer term will spur more innovation, or that a longer term is necessary to recover the cost of developing the invention (as with increasingly expensive pharmaceutical developments).
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    #25
    The "patent everything, even if something is not defensible later, and even if you know the application will be denied" attitude is understandable from a business standpoint.

    But it also shows the absolute mush the Patent Office has become.

    Plus, there is a giant revolving door, where examiners will curry favors from large companies like Apple, so that later they can get a cushy in-house job, or a fat consulting contract.

    The system is broken and all large corporations exploit it, to the detriment of us all.
     

Share This Page