Apple isn't NEARLY the patent troll that other companies are. There are some around now that only make money via patent trolling.
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 'Lawyering Up' as Patent Suits Grow
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple isn't NEARLY the patent troll that other companies are. There are some around now that only make money via patent trolling.
Patent Office
I think that instead of suing the companies they should sue the patent office, aren't they the ones that issue patents that infringe on ones they have already issued to other companies?
I think that instead of suing the companies they should sue the patent office, aren't they the ones that issue patents that infringe on ones they have already issued to other companies?
From what I understand Apple already has the best lawyers in the game.
It's time for major reform in patenting as we know. Residually, the consumer pays for all of this legal infighting.
Acquiring patents in order to sue companies shouldn't be a viable business model, it serves no good purpose.
It's time for major reform in patenting as we know. Residually, the consumer pays for all of this legal infighting.
Acquiring patents in order to sue companies shouldn't be a viable business model, it serves no good purpose.
There was nothing like the iPhone on the market before the iPhone was introduced. It completely changed the smartphone market (which is cool, because whether someone likes Apple or not, they get to enjoy smartphones we weren't even imagining back before its introduction). It is much more than icons on a gridit is a whole user experience defined in hardware, software, and the way you interact with the device. Google's original Android prototypes were more like RIM knockoffs and once iOS came to market they switched gears to release something which attempts to jump directly into the new experience created by iOS. I don't blame themit worked out wellbut as you pointed out, they're just copying the 'style of the time'.
Yes, your correct - iPhone did change the smartphone market. Some for the good, others for the worse, IMO.
However, saying that smartphones were unimagative is a bit incorrect and there had been quite a lot of innovation. Just not maybe in the GUI area. The original iPhone didn't have very good software built in , in fact, quite limited. Very limited. You couldn't even install native applications without jail breaking. IMO, it wasn't a smartphone. It was the GUI that was different.
This has gone off topic quite a bit - PM...
Last edited:
BS...
LG Prada was announced in 2006 and released in January 2007.
First capacitive touchscreen phone on the market.
Only sold a million units in 18 months.
Not the smash hit as the iPhone, but to say the iPhone started it is false.
The form factor of the Prada should look familiar.
BS...
LG Prada was announced in 2006 and released in January 2007.
First capacitive touchscreen phone on the market.
Only sold a million units in 18 months.
Not the smash hit as the iPhone, but to say the iPhone started it is false.
The form factor of the Prada should look familiar.
lol owned.
1. "Patent reform" isn't going to meaningfully change anything. Patents are inherently complicated; there's no way to really simplify them so your secretary can understand them.
2. Patent litigation among corporations isn't like litigation among normal people. Most litigation between large corporations, and especially patent litigation - as weird as this sounds - is just the most efficient way of deciding who owns what and who owes who what.
It works like this. Apple, say, wants to produce a product that works in a certain way. It's possible that something in the product will infringe on someone else's patent, but it's perhaps not clear: (1) that it infringes at all; (2) how much it infringes; and (3) what it should cost to license this if it infringes.
Apple could try to track down patent holders and negotiate licenses with them...and if the patent is obvious, this is what they would do. But if it's at all unclear, it's easier for Apple to just produce its product immediately, start making money, and let the courts sort out who owes what to whom for what. This has the great advantage of producing clarity and a definitive answer. Negotiating close cases without court involvement is in many cases simply a recipe for deadlock.
Obviously, Apple would prefer that no one sue them. But Apple being sued by corp. X is not like you being sued by your neighbor: it's simply a part of how business operates.
3. When compared to other existing patent systems, this system seems to foster the *most* innovation, empirically.
2. Patent litigation among corporations isn't like litigation among normal people. Most litigation between large corporations, and especially patent litigation - as weird as this sounds - is just the most efficient way of deciding who owns what and who owes who what.
It works like this. Apple, say, wants to produce a product that works in a certain way. It's possible that something in the product will infringe on someone else's patent, but it's perhaps not clear: (1) that it infringes at all; (2) how much it infringes; and (3) what it should cost to license this if it infringes.
Apple could try to track down patent holders and negotiate licenses with them...and if the patent is obvious, this is what they would do. But if it's at all unclear, it's easier for Apple to just produce its product immediately, start making money, and let the courts sort out who owes what to whom for what. This has the great advantage of producing clarity and a definitive answer. Negotiating close cases without court involvement is in many cases simply a recipe for deadlock.
Obviously, Apple would prefer that no one sue them. But Apple being sued by corp. X is not like you being sued by your neighbor: it's simply a part of how business operates.
3. When compared to other existing patent systems, this system seems to foster the *most* innovation, empirically.
You know, I used to think you at least had some intelligence behind your hatred. But since you don't even know what "patent troll" means....
Uh, stealing specific product ideas (like GUI design) is precisely what patent law is about. (assuming they are patented designs) That's why this and similar lawsuits exist. Are you arguing that it isn't just cause for a lawsuit?
Agreed that this has gone a bit off topic.
How has the iPhone negatively changed the smartphone market?
I'll point out that I never said previous phones were unimaginative. I can only assume you were responding to someone else in that regard? I would say that innovation in smartphones had stagnated—it is hard to believe otherwise having used mobile phones since then first hit the consumer market—but there certainly was innovation in the market.
I wouldn't say the original iPhone had no good software build in. What helped it to become so successful was the streamlining of basic smartphone elements into something enjoyable to use (if feature limited compared to other smart phones at the time) and what could be 'killer app' caliber software in the form of iTunes, which leads to what may have been perhaps its biggest advantage. Apple has built up a platform like this before, and consumers have consistently voted with their wallets as to what they prefer. Usability is something that was lost to this industry, but that's changing. (I would also like to point out that this practice, starting with a basic platform and developing slowly, deliberately, and intelligently, is a successful tactic in almost any sort of venture).
It was a smartphone. But I see what you mean.
Who's talking exclusively about the form factor? Did you even bother reading what I originally wrote? You might as well dig up a Handspring Visor (Palm OS) and vomit that up as proof that someone did it before the iPhone. I'm not going to bother writing more because I don't think I really need to clarify what I wrote before.
Taking your example of GUI design together with the 3 images that were posted before ; like I said:
* lining up a load of application icons in a grid layout isn't new.
* having applications on a quick launch bar also isn't new.
* having the above on ONE screen isn't new.
So, what are Apple going to sue for? It has been done previously ( for example, on the SE800/9xx ). Of course, Apple could try suing for patent infrigment, but I don't it would get very far.
I probably mis-read your message then, sorry.
The definition of smartphone now varies, especially from location to location ( i.e., Europe vs US ). It would help to define 'what is a smartphone'.
The traditional definition was "a phone that you could exchange information with your computer and ability to install native applications". This is what I consider a smartphone to be too, hence 'the original iPhone wasn't a smartphone'.. well ,until Apple allowed 3rd party app.
Last edited:
You claimed that the iPhone was the first to to combine all these features (grid OS, touchscreen, etc.) in to a phone and you are wrong.
The OS layout on the LG is very similar to iOS in layout and functionality.
Some minor differences is no swiping, you simply tapped the return arrow on the screen.
Add to that the fact that LG didn't care if you installed 3rd party apps compared to the original iPhone that was locked up tighter than a drum.
Hell, it came with a lot of features that didn't show up in a iPhone for almost two years.
My form factor comment was to simply put emphasis on the lack of the iPhone's originality in physical design. It wasn't unique.
You've found a phone with similarities, but from top down, factoring in hardware and experience, there's still a massive gap in comparison. Still, I will say that it looks like it was ahead of its time and I didn't know about this phone before. But simply having a touch screen and a somewhat similar form factor is not what I was discussing. Apple was the company to make this really work; to make it really enjoyable.
Fact is everybody in any business steals IPs. Apple is just as much guilty as Motorola or Google or Microsft. Everyone's ****** culpable. I still expect google to be forced to give the next largest payout to Oracle due to all the blatant java IPs violated.
I assume the 'others' who spend more that you mention are including the cost of having to reverse engineer so much of Apple's work.
sue me sue you blues
Crapolla, only the lawyers make money on these suits.
QUIZ TIME:
Who said. "First we kill all the lawyers."
Who said. "The world will not be safe until the last priest is strangled with the guts of the last lawyer."
First correct answer gets fanned!! Oh, I forgot, this is not Huffington Post, you can't be fanned here. What a shame.
Crapolla, only the lawyers make money on these suits.
QUIZ TIME:
Who said. "First we kill all the lawyers."
Who said. "The world will not be safe until the last priest is strangled with the guts of the last lawyer."
First correct answer gets fanned!! Oh, I forgot, this is not Huffington Post, you can't be fanned here. What a shame.
We may pay more but at least they work like they are supposed to unlike the broken Windows machines I lost money on. I might as well have just sent a check to Microsoft - LOL
Microsoft doesn't sell computers.
If your system was broken, you should have dealt with the hardware manufacturer, not Microsoft.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
C'mon now, the hairs you're splitting are so small they might as well be short and curly.
AidenShaw said:
C'mon now, the hairs you're splitting are so small they might as well be short and curly.
Apple hasn't "won" any of these cases yet. They are all still in the preliminary hearing stages.
And the Windows matter was settled and cannot be revisited.
Apple didn't invent the windowed operating system.
They may have improved it, but the invention preceded them.
A villain in Shakepeare's Henry VI who believed that this would be the only way that he could illegally seize power?
Steve Jobs & Company brought this on themselves.
Even Steve the Great must eventually deal with the consequences of his actions.
It's time to draw on Apple's billions of dollars of dirty money, to throw up road blocks and other diversions. With his finely honed talent in the smoke & mirrors department, there will be plenty of sacrificial lambs to blame it on.
At the end of the day, it won't phase the narcissistic Mr Turtleneck.
Even Steve the Great must eventually deal with the consequences of his actions.
It's time to draw on Apple's billions of dollars of dirty money, to throw up road blocks and other diversions. With his finely honed talent in the smoke & mirrors department, there will be plenty of sacrificial lambs to blame it on.
At the end of the day, it won't phase the narcissistic Mr Turtleneck.