The only indication I've seen where manufactures were headed in any direction was the use of a capacitive touch screen. We seen indications some manufactures did change direction once the iPhone came out. We seen this with the Apple vs Samsung court case.
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.
An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only indication I've seen where manufactures were headed in any direction was the use of a capacitive touch screen. We seen indications some manufactures did change direction once the iPhone came out. We seen this with the Apple vs Samsung court case.
Sorry about those exclusivity arrangements with Apple and Swatch, but Liquid Metals wasn't exactly minting money at the time. Perhaps Samsung should have used some of that world class manufacturing expertise to foresee the future of LM and purchase a license?
When Apple purchased the license, there was only a single prototype purpose built molding machine in existence. LM is hardly ready for 100-200m unit production that it would see on an iPhone case as an example. The highest volume production by Apple was a sim removal tool for the 3GS. Even the Samsung parts were either very limited run, or very small.
There's a bit of an explanation in the article following as to why Apple is not ready for volume production of LM parts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...eakthrough-product-made-from-Liquidmetal.html
From Bloomberg
"The iMac accounted for 32.9 percent of shipments in the third quarter, the research firm estimates. Lenovo Group (992), meanwhile, grabbed the No. 2 spot in the all-in-one segment by appealing to customers in China. It had 22.7percent of sales in the third quarter, followed by Hewlett-Packard with 21.4 percent. The total market may grow to 23.3 million units by 2014, according to DisplaySearch. "
Yeah, biggest player in the market with far and away the highest consumer price and highest margins would totally be doing their investors a disservice by updating a freaking processor. Their time is better spent by making a heavier ipad that is 7millimeters thinner...Or a phone with the headphone jack on the bottom so people dont have to... i don't even know what... or ear shaped headphones (allegedly) because in apple's own words "why would anybody make earbud round?" Well ask jony ive because he's been doing it for you for the last decade.
Oh, and just so you know, the desktop users you seem to have so much disdain for are the reason the company exists.
Some would say it exists today due to the iPod
I think you're confusing changing directions with continuing to move forward. Samsung (and others) already had phones in their pipeline before the iPhone was announced. Even if it took the iPhone for them to see how popular that format could be - that doesn't negate the fact they were already designing phones. If the iPhone was a dismal failure because people hated not having a physical keyboard - would they have still brought out their fully capacitive touch screen phones. Who knows. No one can say.
According to the inventor himself, the technology is not yet mature, which leads me to believe samsung rushed their product out:
http://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/news/2012/05/iphone_5_won_t_have_liquidmetal_body_says_inventor/
Is concept art patentable? Also, we see concepts at car shows every year that never see the light of day. All this proves is that they drew up some pictures of "futuristic phones" that would be really great to make someday. The fact is Apple was the first to come out with a multi-touch phone that was actually enjoyable to use. If other companies had years of legacy devices to support then that is on them. Which i'm not really sure how much support went into supporting those old devices as I never received updates on my old phones. It was always what you see is what you get.
Aren't almost all patents concept art? At least in the mobile industry. I'm pretty sure that at least 90 percent if not more of what gets files by Apple hasn't and may not ever get used - but they have provided concept art and descriptions.
Long gone are the days where you had to actually have a working model/etc to apply and get approved for a patent.
I guess i'm wondering if this concept art was actually patented? And the mutitouch along with it?
Or rather continuing forward after a change in direction. Manufactures continuing to develop new products is nothing new. We have no indications showing Samsung ever developed something simular & prior to the iPhone when Apple released theirs. We do have indications they did implement design changes based on the iPhone itself.
You're factually incorrect. Both in regard to Samsung. And other manufacturers. As I said earlier - and I can only speak for the company I worked for - they had full capacitive touch screen phones in the pipeline as early as 2002-2003.
So no change of direction at all. No matter how you try and spin it. At least 2 companies were headed and continued to head in the same direction.
Sure. Apple patented the ornamental design of a slim, rounded-rectangle display case with full front glass, years before they had an actual product (iPad) that looked like it.
It proves that others had (very) similar ideas. Look at that design... the grid of rounded rectangle icons, the button at the bottom, etc.
Through a technicality, Judge Koh barred those documents from the trial.
Can you imagine the difference it would've made if the jury had seen clear evidence that Apple's designs were not that unique?
I'm talking about the maker, developer and carrier point of view. Smartphones started with some very tiny displays and keypads, so UIs were developed that revolved around the limits and hardware of the time.
Even as devices progressed, they were often held back by the desire to keep backwards software compatibility. As I noted, Apple has already experienced this problem, coming up with hacks like pixel doubling and simply elongating the screen.
Apple is trapped just like other systems before it. They cannot make too radical a change without ostracizing developers and customers.
Right here is the most alarming (and disheartening) aspect. What happens to innovation when R&D is being outspent by lawsuits? The report on "This American Life" about patent trolls is highly enlightening. I do like the earlier poster's idea of large companies amalgamating all of these nebulous patents into a clearinghouse, from which they can be licensed for free. A helluva lot cheaper than millions of billable hours to lawyers.
At some point in time, Apple will have hardware in hand to provide resolution independence, if that is what is required, along with iOS II or whatever the next generation will be called. In the meantime, it seems to me like Apple have very neatly sidestepped into a completely different aspect ratio screen with very little pain for the developer.
Wasn't much of a trap to this point.
If this is the case how are all the other companies able to create similar looking products?
Doesn't this go back to, they may have had similar ideas but did not patent them. Apple was first and patented them so it wouldn't really matter if they had similar ideas?
What was the technicality? Was it because Samsung never patented those ideas?
I would argue they were unique as only unpatented secret designs from other companies were all that existed, not fully functionable, enjoyable to use devices currently available for sale.
Agreed, although it does seem like apple is more willing to make changes to it's products even if it isn't popular at the time.
That's not what the article said.
Patents and Patent purchases, exceeded R&D costs, at least temporarily, not legal trials for patent defense.
That and some things they still patent even if they don't use it right away, if at all. Its better to patent it now then licence it later through someone else when you had the chance.
You can't do that without some kind of protection. If I make Widget A, and you come along later and make Widget A1, which is an exact copy of my Widget A. How can I out perform you? You make it without any R&D, or any real Marketing, and all the extra costs that go into making anything. So you do it far cheaper then I did. All the reward with no risk for being first. Now we are giving the advantage to those that copy verses those that innovate.
You can outperform the competition by being second in this case. Nothing wrong with finding another way to make Widget A. So long as it's not a copy.
Not true. How do you know that I copied your idea? Can you prove that I didn't also happen to come up with the same idea? (The burden of proof lies with you, since it is you making the accusation.) Also, people think up the same stuff often, and have done so throughout history.
Secondly, so what? Carry on making your product and use your resources to get to the market first. Consumers will reward your hard work by giving you market share and sales. If the copycat gets more sales than you, then you'd need to ask why; are you doing something wrong? Are you charging too much? Is your advertising subpar? And consumers aren't stupid; they'll figure out which is the knock-off and which isn't. (They always do.)
Protecting (via the government) your IP will only keep costs up and competition down.
This is one of Apple's lawyers on the subject. Read it and tell me that is not patent troll like behavior.
The idea of patent protecting gives the holder the chance to recoup the costs of research and development done through through trail & error.
And more importantly, it allows up & coming small businesses to compete with larger more well established companies they could not otherwise do.
When we are often talking about foreign competitors, they don't often have to follow the same laws & rules as we do such as environmental concerns, often get government subsidies ect.
Personally I don't believe it's fair that you create a product, spend your hard earned money on marketing only for someone else to simply take your idea and sell the same product for profit. You came up with the idea, you spent the money and hours to bring it to life. You had to take the chance and hope it sells. Then someone just comes right in, not having to do 90% of the work you put into it and do the same thing?
A lot of consumers don't care if it's a knock off and will purchase something just because it's cheaper.
In your scenario a large company could just start producing your product and has much more money to advertise it and sell it for cheaper.
Firstly, do you have real world examples of your scenario and, secondly, how would you know that the competitor copied your idea?
The analogy doesn't work anyway because you both are talking about products. Products typically aren't patented themselves because they are a collection of parts or technologies that are put together. It's the parts and technologies that are patented.
And these days - in the tech world - there isn't a single entity that can build something that doesn't require the licensing of a patent from someone else.