Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    [​IMG]

    Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world".

    Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.

    All Things D's John Paczkowski interprets Walker's argument thusly:
    Apple strongly disagrees. Bruce Sewell, Apple's top lawyer, writes a rebuttal letter to the committee, saying in part, that simply because a "proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a 'standard' subject to the same legal constraints as true standards."

    In other words, simply because an Apple technology is extremely popular with consumers, doesn't mean Apple has to license that technology to competitors. Apple owns numerous patents regarding nearly all iOS technologies, a fact that Steve Jobs touted when he launched the first iPhone in 2007.

    From Sewell's letter:
    Though Tim Cook has said that he hates lawsuits -- once calling them "a pain in the ass" -- he has said he will staunchly defend Apple's inventions from copycats.

    Steve Jobs was quoted in his biography as threatening to "go thermonuclear" on Google for what he considered the theft of Apple's intellectual property regarding the Android operating system. He pledged to spend every penny Apple had in the bank, a war chest that has since grown to more than $100 billion, fighting a legal battle with the company.

    All Things D has the full text of both letters, as well as a much deeper analysis of the legal aspects of the situation.

    Article Link: Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    #2
    Translation: we like your innovations and want to use them for free to compete with you.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #3
    Is Google suggesting they, and others, can't compete without infringing or using Apples patents?
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #4
    Or, Google can invest the billions that Apple did on R&D instead of demanding to reap the benefits of all that work for free. I know they love to just take, take, take from everyone around them with impunity, but unless they cut a check to everyone who WORKED on all these inventions, they should shut up. Now.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    JoEw

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    #5
    I don't understand why companies can't just pay up, just like apple should have to if they infringe as well. It's only fair.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #6
    Google: I'm helpless, cannot inovate. Give me your billion dollar research for pennies. It is only fair to me... and the consumer of course...

    Apple: up your nose with a rubber hose.
     
  7. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    I see both sides

    Though, things like multitouch should be a standard....as what other way should there be to operate a touch device?

    Same with a grid layout

    These are all imo, obvious implementations of a touch screen device
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    #8
    Google is suggesting that if Apple is going to get BS patents that are essential they should be able to be licensed, instead of acting like the selfish child on the playground
     
  9. Contributing Editor

    jlgolson

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Durango, CO
    #9
    It appears that way.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #10
    Where are the negative votes? This is, for example, an obvious troll that should be voted negative.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #11
    hindsight is always 20/20.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    #12
    lol what hindsight, all that existed before the iphone
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    Drifting through space in a broken escape pod
    #13
    These things became popular with consumers because Apple invented them and made them popular. Coming along afterwards, ripping them off, and saying they're essential is the same as arguing that patents shouldn't exist, at all.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #14
    Apple didn't invent the smartphone. If these innovations were "essential" to smartphones, wouldn't others have thought of them before Apple did?
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #15
    I think I read somewhere that Apple invests way less in R&D than other companies. They focus on a single product and make it amazing, as opposed to spreading it out among tons of different products. You can throw all the money in the world into R&D, but if you don't use it properly, it goes to waste.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    #16
    It's much cheaper to license the patents in the beginning than to fight an infringement lawsuit.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    #17
    a lot of it was used previously, just no one was douchey enough to patent a lot of essential stuff as Apple is
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Swift

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    In other words also

    We saw something we like, so we used it. If you want to acknowledge patents, or any kind of intellectual property, which our bosses do not, because it costs money and doesn't sell ads -- then make government commandeer the things we want to copy.

    So, what might end this whole thing the Tim Cook way is for Google to pay for licensing of what they now infringe on.

    Steve, or any CEO, makes chess moves. Patents that are necessary for the network to work correctly are FRAND. Mandatory licensing.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    #19
    If it was used previously in the way Apple describes in the patent claims, it would have been rejected during examination of the patent application. You don't just get a patent just because.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    ardent73

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    #20
    Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

    Yep, Google should shut down, sell everything and distribute it to the shareholders. :D
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21
    Examples, please.
     
  22. macrumors G3

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    It's Never A Good Night To Have A Curse
    #22
    Question. Do you think that everything that went into the iPhone was invented by Apple in Cupertino? That they used no one elses technology to make the iPhone what it is today?
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    NY
    #23
    Yes. It's Angry Eric again.

    What goes around eventually comes around Eric. I never cared for Butter on Jelly Beans anyhow. ;)
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #24
    I disagree. There were touch screen implementations before the iPhone. Apple found a way to do it on the iPhone that they felt was better. There are plenty of ways to do it and most companies are going their own path. If you don't want an Apple product you don't have to buy them. The idea is simple. Apple hatters hate Apple really secretly love them.
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    As Ives himself said in Objectified, a well-designed product looks like an obvious solution. But it takes a long time to get there.
     

Share This Page