Without the intellectual property rights and patent protection no company would invest in the R&D to make innovative products. There would be no iPhone. Or anything else of interest, just old rehashed ideas in the public domain.
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.
Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Without the intellectual property rights and patent protection no company would invest in the R&D to make innovative products. There would be no iPhone. Or anything else of interest, just old rehashed ideas in the public domain.
Sad news, indeed.
Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone design but Apple is clearly using its position to stifle competition. Competition is good for the market so, IMO, this little fiasco is bad for everyone except Apple.
Two thumbs down to Apple AND Google.
Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone design but Apple is clearly using its position to stifle competition. Competition is good for the market so, IMO, this little fiasco is bad for everyone except Apple.
Two thumbs down to Apple AND Google.
Yeah, so pharmaceutical companies spend maybe a billion on a drug before they stop to ask, are we going to get this patented? If no, that's the end of the drug. It may suck for the consumer, but seriously ... they gotta recoup their investment. Same goes for Apple. Why develop this stuff then give it away?
Intellectual protection encourages new ideas, instead of copying old ideas.Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone design but Apple is clearly using its position to stifle competition. Competition is good for the market so, IMO, this little fiasco is bad for everyone except Apple.
Two thumbs down to Apple AND Google.
Patent and copyright protection encourages competition and discourages copycat products by companies too lazy to develop new ideas.
Thanks.
I've said that here before too, but some of these people just don't get it. And patents DO NOT stifle competition, product improvements, creativity or harm consumer interests. Just the opposite.
If a company has intellectual property (in this case a granted patent on the iPhone) they must protect it. A company just can't say, "Aww shucks I guess you maybe can copy us." If they do, they LOSE their rights to protect it in court. They can licence the technology, but can't knowingly allow a company to copy it.
Apple has spent millions on the development of a new and novel device and interface. It is their obligation to the shareholders of the company(me and lots of others) to protect the investment.
Apple, sue the pants off of any company that infringes on the patents and claims !
I've said that here before too, but some of these people just don't get it. And patents DO NOT stifle competition, product improvements, creativity or harm consumer interests. Just the opposite.
How is making reference to a movie relevant to this patent discussion? For those who don't know any better: MOVIES ARE NOT REAL. They didn't implement pinch zoom, it's fake. I know this could come as a shock to many. An anti-gravity skateboard could still be patentable if invented, even though it existed in the movie back to the future 2. You can't patent something that is already in use. Pinch zoom was not in use.
Well lets be realistic Google Android is only one product, not even a very profitable one. Apple iPhone support for other Google services is much more profitable. Why sacrifice a known revenue source for a potential long term smaller revenue source.
I don't know how true this is but I think you are greatly missing the point. If said company (Apple) creates a product that they have patented certain features of it, then comes along said company (Google) and creates a product that is stepping all over patents from Apple's product then Apple has the right to tell Google to remove those "Apple Patented" features from Google's product.
It has nothing to do with monopolizing or stifling innovation, it's about companies creating their OWN PRODUCT and violating other company's patents.
You can go read about the concept of US antitrust law over at wikipedia if you're curious. Warning a competitor away from your patented domain does not run afoul of antitrust law. The classic examples are price-fixing, bid-rigging, geographic market allocation, and "Walker process fraud". This is unlike any of those. It is also unlike the antitrust case against Microsoft, wherein they held a monopoly on PC operating systems and took actions to crush threats to that monopoly. (See Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in that case.) Apple does not hold a monopoly in mobile phones, or even smart phones, so that precedent means nothing here either.
Agreed. However, it's not even worth bringing up here. Most forum viewers have this idiotic idea that Apple SHOULD stifle the innovation of others by way of insane defense of intellectual property to the nth degree because they imagine that it all translates into a higher AAPL stock price.
Not to say that they should never defend true innovation, but there are better ways of succeeding aside from endlessly defending itself. A real world example of this is a company of Apple's size spends far more on R&D than Apple does. Of course, this is a testament to Apple producing on a tight budget but imagine if Apple spent less on legal affairs and instead pumped the cash into the laboratories. Google could use multitouch (or Palm) and Apple would have to come out with something better, sooner! So, let me say to the masses we can agree to disagree.
You are wrong on so many points here, it really is "to laugh at." Apple bought a company which held many "multi-touch" gestural patents, so they own those as well. Apple patented their specific use of the technology (implementation) in the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Further, you CANNOT GET A PATENT ON AN IDEA THAT IS "OBVIOUS". It's the law everywhere that has a national patent office! Do any of you who insist on restating this endlessly ever read anything? And if "almost anyone would have thought of it if they really wanted" then these "almost anyones" should have taken a few days and written a patent application themselves. Of the billions of people on the planet, no one else did. So it wasn't so obvious after all.
As far as von Neumann, even if he had a patent----it would have expired over a century ago, and it's free to use. Patents only have a limited life span. You should read more books, fewer blogs.
My thoughts too, but then again this site is called MacRumors we can't really complain.
The Pre, Palm's savior or just another smartphone?
Palm has been busy and the Pre is coming. A lot of people are quite excited about this phone and again are saying 'iphone killer'. I lost a lot of my excitement for Palm from their continued push to Window Mobile and away from palmOS, however this phone is back to a Palm OS and this could be a change in the right direction.
I have outlined the challenges that this phone is going to face, and then listed secret weapons that could really change the game :
1. Timing: This phone really needed to be out for the iPhone 3G launch, that timing would have been impeccable. Apple currently is on top of their game and not showing signs of weakness, is this really the right time for a weakened Palm to make their big move? Exactly like the xBox 360 proved, time to market may be the largest factor for modern electronics, if the PS3 was around during the launch of the 360 we would be in the midst of a much different console ecosystem, this ecosystem might not even include the 360 if timing was changed.
Timing also becomes a double whammy when we look at how long this stuff takes to catch on. The iPhone and App store just didn't happen overnight. The iPhone had the luxury of being a true game changer, while everyone else was playing catch-up Apple was building the phenomena that we have today. Palm delivering on all that is promised is going to be quite a challenge, daunting in fact.
2. Momentum, 13 million iPhones and growing: Even Apple haters have to admit that the iPhone is here and not going anywhere soon The app store is quite a large beast to take on and has momentum within the developer community. It would be hard to find a entertainment or game company that isn't thinking about or currently in development of a product for this platform. While this momentum continues to build, Palm is going to have to put a lot of effort in to generate momentum for a entire new platform and a entire new development community and tools.
3. iTunes: iTunes clocked 5 billion song downloads over 7 months ago (June 2008), that is 5 billion songs that people are not going to want to convert over to the next thing. Are people going to get excited about having some mechanism to convert their precious music libraries for a new phone? Amazon is arguable gaining momentum however iTunes is currently king, and quite a few people use and like iTunes.
4. Hype and wait: Apple's release of the iPhone was very crafty, the phone was available and ready for purchase as it was announced. The iPhone was a got to have it now item and people got to have it, and boy did they get it. The Pre currently is a hype and wait marketing model, Palm is not holding much back, their are hundreds of reviews and sites and the phone is not even available yet. This takes a bit away from spontaneous purchases and makes people stop, think and analyze. Some of these people might just not make that purchase when they have time to over think it, some of them might not want to wait and just get a iPhone.
2. The present state of the union: It fascinates me that Palm is pushing a luxury based high-end smart phone in to a depressed market place. People are hunkering down across the board and probably a bit less excited about dropping a chunk of money on the latest new smartphone. Even worse, possible current iPhone users that might have converted during better times, might now reconsider converting and just keep their present iPhone. It might not be the best time to bet-the-farm with a gigantic product launch?
2. Me-Too Factor: The iPhone clones have helped to prove that 'me-too phones' don't always do as well as expected. Some would argue that a lot of the functionality and features of the Pre are a bit more than 'inspired-by' the iPhone and more along the lines of reverse-engineered from the iPhone. This form of flattery might turn off some buyers, it might not?
3. The right customers: A large portion of Apple customers are from a subset of people that any company would love to have as theirs. They represent people that often have disposable income and extreme loyalty. Plenty of these customers have already made the choice and are with AT&T, iPhone in tow.
Exceptions aside, every person that I know with a iPhone is the type of customers that I would want. They are generally not cheap and spend accordingly.
Sure, it is a big world and there are plenty of these premium customers left, but a large chunk of these people are spoken for.
4. The wrong customers: On the flip side, the average Sprint customer might be a bit on the frugal side. Arguably Sprint is considered the budget minded cellular provider. Their call plans are hands-down the cheapest and the customer service ratings reflect that. Are Sprint customers going to be the best early adopters and rushing out to buy a premium smartphone?
5. The fashion statement: The Pre is just not stacked up to become a fashion statement. The design is solid but it fails to excite or make a identity statement. The iPhone was able to really change the game in this department and continues to be considered a personal statement as much as a smartphone. I just don't see the current Pre producing this level of sex appeal.
6. $300 for copy and paste: We all know the media-hyped short-comings of the iPhone, competitive predecessors have addressed them with mixed results. Are people going to run out and get a new smartphone so they can have a removable battery, video recording and copy and paste?
6. Google couldn't do it: The google phone had arguably more hype then even the Pre is currently commanding and failed to deliver to that hype. If a monster like google couldn't dethrone, can we expect a cash-strapped Palm to perform any better?
7. The iTouch Factor: A dirty little secret might be the number of iTouch units that are out there. I know quite a few people that have forgone the AT&T switch and have gotten a iTouch instead. They use their iTouch units quite extensively in wifi zones and their phones as just phones. These people are adverse to the cellular contracts and have found wifi nirvana with the iTouch.
7. Palm's desperation: Recent press might lead one to believe that Palm is a bit desperate and this is a critical product launch for the future of the company. This might be caution the marketplace and make them wonder if Palm has the horsepower to push this all the way through. Does Palm have the cash to go big enough on this one?
8. litigation: The Apple patents are not going away, and Apple has stated that they will defend their intellectual property fiercely. I think the pre is going to be a major target for this litigation. Could this delay the launch, could this cost Palm a large chunk of money to defend? These factors could damage this product launch.
9. The Missing Sync: The weak link for recent PalmOS phones has been the syncing software, in fact a large portion of Palm TREO users have relied on third party tools like 'The Missing Sync' to have a more complete sync solution. The Palm desktop software has fallen short for some, will they get the sync software right this time? Will they execute a Cloud computing system like Apple's mobileMe?
Factors that could change the game for the Palm Pre:
1. Asia: The Pre could catch on in Asian countries and really gain momentum there, Apple has struggled in these markets.
2. Microsoft Money: Microsoft could be doing some amazing secret integration with the new Palm OS, or could write a blank check to help. Exclusive Windows 7 integration, maybe?
3. Bad publicity from litigation: If Apple does sue the pants off of Palm, this could generate some bad press and martyrize this product. The Pre could become the underdog product that is 'sticking it to the man.'
4. Netflix: Some secret Netflix deal, free movie rentals on the Pre for Netflix members?
5. Free Tethering: Sprint kicks in free tethering for laptops for Pre phones with unlimited data plans. AT&T is currently charging iPhone customers for this service.
6. The pirate phone: Palm and Sprint are not heavily vested in the entertainment industry, does pirating really affect them? Could the Pre be the best phone to bit-torrent, play and share copyrighted material? That would be a plus for much more people then we would like to admit.
7. It runs windows: Steve Jobs made a phone with one button, maybe Palm could make a phone that runs Windows applications. Imagine a phone that runs the same applications that your laptop does, it could happen.
8. $99 or even better , free: If Sprint and Palm somehow are able to sell this phone for $99 or even less that would be momental for increased success.
9. 3 year contract, or no contract: If $99 or less is just not possible with a two year contract, how about a 3 year contract? How about no contract?
10. 'One more thing': Are we going to see something that we cannot even imagine, some feature that is a game-changer? Does Palm have something up their sleeve?
Palm has been busy and the Pre is coming. A lot of people are quite excited about this phone and again are saying 'iphone killer'. I lost a lot of my excitement for Palm from their continued push to Window Mobile and away from palmOS, however this phone is back to a Palm OS and this could be a change in the right direction.
I have outlined the challenges that this phone is going to face, and then listed secret weapons that could really change the game :
1. Timing: This phone really needed to be out for the iPhone 3G launch, that timing would have been impeccable. Apple currently is on top of their game and not showing signs of weakness, is this really the right time for a weakened Palm to make their big move? Exactly like the xBox 360 proved, time to market may be the largest factor for modern electronics, if the PS3 was around during the launch of the 360 we would be in the midst of a much different console ecosystem, this ecosystem might not even include the 360 if timing was changed.
Timing also becomes a double whammy when we look at how long this stuff takes to catch on. The iPhone and App store just didn't happen overnight. The iPhone had the luxury of being a true game changer, while everyone else was playing catch-up Apple was building the phenomena that we have today. Palm delivering on all that is promised is going to be quite a challenge, daunting in fact.
2. Momentum, 13 million iPhones and growing: Even Apple haters have to admit that the iPhone is here and not going anywhere soon The app store is quite a large beast to take on and has momentum within the developer community. It would be hard to find a entertainment or game company that isn't thinking about or currently in development of a product for this platform. While this momentum continues to build, Palm is going to have to put a lot of effort in to generate momentum for a entire new platform and a entire new development community and tools.
3. iTunes: iTunes clocked 5 billion song downloads over 7 months ago (June 2008), that is 5 billion songs that people are not going to want to convert over to the next thing. Are people going to get excited about having some mechanism to convert their precious music libraries for a new phone? Amazon is arguable gaining momentum however iTunes is currently king, and quite a few people use and like iTunes.
4. Hype and wait: Apple's release of the iPhone was very crafty, the phone was available and ready for purchase as it was announced. The iPhone was a got to have it now item and people got to have it, and boy did they get it. The Pre currently is a hype and wait marketing model, Palm is not holding much back, their are hundreds of reviews and sites and the phone is not even available yet. This takes a bit away from spontaneous purchases and makes people stop, think and analyze. Some of these people might just not make that purchase when they have time to over think it, some of them might not want to wait and just get a iPhone.
2. The present state of the union: It fascinates me that Palm is pushing a luxury based high-end smart phone in to a depressed market place. People are hunkering down across the board and probably a bit less excited about dropping a chunk of money on the latest new smartphone. Even worse, possible current iPhone users that might have converted during better times, might now reconsider converting and just keep their present iPhone. It might not be the best time to bet-the-farm with a gigantic product launch?
2. Me-Too Factor: The iPhone clones have helped to prove that 'me-too phones' don't always do as well as expected. Some would argue that a lot of the functionality and features of the Pre are a bit more than 'inspired-by' the iPhone and more along the lines of reverse-engineered from the iPhone. This form of flattery might turn off some buyers, it might not?
3. The right customers: A large portion of Apple customers are from a subset of people that any company would love to have as theirs. They represent people that often have disposable income and extreme loyalty. Plenty of these customers have already made the choice and are with AT&T, iPhone in tow.
Exceptions aside, every person that I know with a iPhone is the type of customers that I would want. They are generally not cheap and spend accordingly.
Sure, it is a big world and there are plenty of these premium customers left, but a large chunk of these people are spoken for.
4. The wrong customers: On the flip side, the average Sprint customer might be a bit on the frugal side. Arguably Sprint is considered the budget minded cellular provider. Their call plans are hands-down the cheapest and the customer service ratings reflect that. Are Sprint customers going to be the best early adopters and rushing out to buy a premium smartphone?
5. The fashion statement: The Pre is just not stacked up to become a fashion statement. The design is solid but it fails to excite or make a identity statement. The iPhone was able to really change the game in this department and continues to be considered a personal statement as much as a smartphone. I just don't see the current Pre producing this level of sex appeal.
6. $300 for copy and paste: We all know the media-hyped short-comings of the iPhone, competitive predecessors have addressed them with mixed results. Are people going to run out and get a new smartphone so they can have a removable battery, video recording and copy and paste?
6. Google couldn't do it: The google phone had arguably more hype then even the Pre is currently commanding and failed to deliver to that hype. If a monster like google couldn't dethrone, can we expect a cash-strapped Palm to perform any better?
7. The iTouch Factor: A dirty little secret might be the number of iTouch units that are out there. I know quite a few people that have forgone the AT&T switch and have gotten a iTouch instead. They use their iTouch units quite extensively in wifi zones and their phones as just phones. These people are adverse to the cellular contracts and have found wifi nirvana with the iTouch.
7. Palm's desperation: Recent press might lead one to believe that Palm is a bit desperate and this is a critical product launch for the future of the company. This might be caution the marketplace and make them wonder if Palm has the horsepower to push this all the way through. Does Palm have the cash to go big enough on this one?
8. litigation: The Apple patents are not going away, and Apple has stated that they will defend their intellectual property fiercely. I think the pre is going to be a major target for this litigation. Could this delay the launch, could this cost Palm a large chunk of money to defend? These factors could damage this product launch.
9. The Missing Sync: The weak link for recent PalmOS phones has been the syncing software, in fact a large portion of Palm TREO users have relied on third party tools like 'The Missing Sync' to have a more complete sync solution. The Palm desktop software has fallen short for some, will they get the sync software right this time? Will they execute a Cloud computing system like Apple's mobileMe?
Factors that could change the game for the Palm Pre:
1. Asia: The Pre could catch on in Asian countries and really gain momentum there, Apple has struggled in these markets.
2. Microsoft Money: Microsoft could be doing some amazing secret integration with the new Palm OS, or could write a blank check to help. Exclusive Windows 7 integration, maybe?
3. Bad publicity from litigation: If Apple does sue the pants off of Palm, this could generate some bad press and martyrize this product. The Pre could become the underdog product that is 'sticking it to the man.'
4. Netflix: Some secret Netflix deal, free movie rentals on the Pre for Netflix members?
5. Free Tethering: Sprint kicks in free tethering for laptops for Pre phones with unlimited data plans. AT&T is currently charging iPhone customers for this service.
6. The pirate phone: Palm and Sprint are not heavily vested in the entertainment industry, does pirating really affect them? Could the Pre be the best phone to bit-torrent, play and share copyrighted material? That would be a plus for much more people then we would like to admit.
7. It runs windows: Steve Jobs made a phone with one button, maybe Palm could make a phone that runs Windows applications. Imagine a phone that runs the same applications that your laptop does, it could happen.
8. $99 or even better , free: If Sprint and Palm somehow are able to sell this phone for $99 or even less that would be momental for increased success.
9. 3 year contract, or no contract: If $99 or less is just not possible with a two year contract, how about a 3 year contract? How about no contract?
10. 'One more thing': Are we going to see something that we cannot even imagine, some feature that is a game-changer? Does Palm have something up their sleeve?
Too funny ... I can imagine the writer you replied to saying ...
'OMG, Are you telling me there is no Superman?'
Thanks, but that article was debunked within a day. There are too many "reporters" on the web who don't know how to read patent claims, but do know how to generate revenue-producing reader traffic with bogus headlines.
Your example is totally irrelevant. The skateboard is a device. Pinch is not. It's a gesture, and in this case, a well known one in the touch field. You can only patent the methods you use to detect such a gesture.
Pinch zoom dates back to at least 1983. Here's a video of it in use in 1988. Jump ahead to time 4:30 and you'll see the in/out motion being used for scaling. Also see this 1991 video, jump to 6:30 for pinch with copy/paste. And yes, even Han and his much later 2006 two-finger zoom at TED (see about 2:40 in).
I have been programming touchpads since 1983 and touchscreens since 1992. A lot of stuff has been in use in industrial and military settings, that you have never heard of.
See above for michaelvoigt's post.
Excellent summation, very thought provoking. Thank you.
The least Apple can do is to offer good support for the price each customer pays for their products.
You know, there IS a reason for patents...
They were originally conceived to prevent other companies or individuals from making a profit off of the creator's designs without permission.
Granted, the current patent system needs to be fixed. The idea of someone patenting an idea that is already in the wild is both stupid and fraudulent. Regrettably, there are individuals and companies that are doing exactly that, filing patents on products already on the shelf and then suing the creators and other users just for the money -- without ever having produced an item using that patent.
I say, fix the patent system, then shoot down all these fraudulent lawsuits!
They were originally conceived to prevent other companies or individuals from making a profit off of the creator's designs without permission.
Granted, the current patent system needs to be fixed. The idea of someone patenting an idea that is already in the wild is both stupid and fraudulent. Regrettably, there are individuals and companies that are doing exactly that, filing patents on products already on the shelf and then suing the creators and other users just for the money -- without ever having produced an item using that patent.
I say, fix the patent system, then shoot down all these fraudulent lawsuits!
idiotic
you're ridiculous. there is a reason why there are patents. who pays apple for the millions upon millions for reasearch, prototypes and man hours over the 3 and a 1/2 years it was being developed? you're thinking about it from your own selfish point of view. the customer. read the wired article about how hard it was for apple to get the iphone ready in time for macworld. is it fair to have some company use all of apple's research (with apple employees mind you) to come out with thier own product?
you're ridiculous. there is a reason why there are patents. who pays apple for the millions upon millions for reasearch, prototypes and man hours over the 3 and a 1/2 years it was being developed? you're thinking about it from your own selfish point of view. the customer. read the wired article about how hard it was for apple to get the iphone ready in time for macworld. is it fair to have some company use all of apple's research (with apple employees mind you) to come out with thier own product?
OK, you're just not listening, are you? Apple is REQUIRED to defend its patent, or they lose the right to do so at all. They're not doing it to the "nth" degree on the iPhone or anything else.
I don't know where you got the idea that most forum viewers want Apple to "stifle innovation" to increase the stock price. Quite the opposite here, where you and half of the others have no clue about patents at all.
And, of course, patents do not stifle innovation. That's just a "patently" ridiculous argument. Do we all drive the exact same cars with the exact same technology---no, even tho auto technology is massively patented and always has been. The ideas that thrive in the market are the ideas that WORK, regardless of patent position.
Very basically, patents in the US run for 20 years from the date of application for utility patents, and 14 years from the date of issue for design patents. Think back 14 years ago---what was computing like? Did any patents restrict innovation? Are you still using that Iomega Jasmine Bernoulli drive? Floppy disks? Tape drives? Apple Talk printer connectors? Parallel ports..oh, sorry Windows box users. Fifty pound cathode ray tube monitors?
I tell you what: if there is no significant change in phone technology in the time of Apple's iPhone patent coverage...I will donate $1000 dollars to the St. Jude's Children's Hospital. I will do so anyhow, but even you anti-patent people know beyond a doubt that even five or seven years from now the phones and touch devices in general will be astoundingly different. And no patent will change that.
Apple spends a huge amount on R&D, far more than other companies, so you are just wrong there.
If a company has intellectual property (in this case a granted patent on the iPhone) they must protect it. A company just can't say, "Aww shucks I guess you maybe can copy us." If they do, they LOSE their rights to protect it in court. They can licence the technology, but can't knowingly allow a company to copy it.
Apple has spent millions on the development of a new and novel device and interface. It is their obligation to the shareholders of the company
Apple, sue the pants off of any company that infringes on the patents and claims !
That is incorrect. You DO NOT give up patent rights if you don't enforce them. You're thinking of trademark law, which you do lose if you don't defend it.
If what you are saying was true there would be no such thing as patent "torpedoing".
Here's a novel concept.
Perhaps Apple and Google actually like each other ( ergo Schmidt on the Apple board ) and don't want to step on each others toes. Apple simply asked Google not to implement multi-touch and Google said ok.
I really don't think Google has the mindset of trying to overtake the iPhone.
Perhaps Apple and Google actually like each other ( ergo Schmidt on the Apple board ) and don't want to step on each others toes. Apple simply asked Google not to implement multi-touch and Google said ok.
I really don't think Google has the mindset of trying to overtake the iPhone.
Yes, I have little knowledge about these areas. What I do know is that warning a potential patent infringer that you will fight is certainly not an antitrust issue -- as you eluded to.
Still smells fishy....