Pure conjecture. It’s Optus’ patent and they can choose to or not to develop products; Apple will no doubt be the owner of hundreds, potentially thousands of patents that never see the light of day, but would have the equivalent of a territorial army defending them if a smaller company infringed on them.
Apple was a steaming locomotive when Tim Cook took over. True he has increased sales by simply doing more of the same and expanding into new countries but let’s be honest he didn’t create this locomotive and doesn’t deserve the plaudits. Steve Jobs handed him the greatest legacy any CEO has ever been handed in history. All Tim Cook had to do was not screw it up.
Given the UK is one of Apple's largest iPhone markets in Europe, I doubt very much that would happen. Just follow the law and they won't have these problems.
You're missing the purpose of Apple as a publicly traded corporation. The purpose is to make money for its owners. The owners are its shareholders, including me. And Tim Cook is way better at that than Steve Jobs, John Sculley, Gil Amelio or Michael Spindler. Apple is not ripping you or anyone else off. You have a choice: If you don't like Apple's prices, buy something else. If you can't cope with a capitalist country, you have TWO choices: work to change America into a communist country where the government owns everything (think that would lower prices on iPhones?), or leave for a country more suited to your sensibilities.
I’m not saying they’re illegal but just because something is legal or illegal doesn’t mean it’s right. There have been many things that were legal in the past that weren’t right. The law should be changed, but I don’t think it’ll happen.
I don’t think he has a dog in this fight or really cares that much. He has so many issues going on. This is probably at the bottom of the list that’s on the bottom of the list.
I support this. If you invent a better wheel than you should be able to patent it and license it out. I don’t think patent protection should not be exclusive to manufacturers. There’s a difference between someone legitimately inventing or designing something and a corporation holding patents just to sue people. We need a system that rewards those that come up with designs and ideas. That’s the purpose of patents. If I create this new tire that holds air instead of a solid piece of rubber, I should be rewarded for that. Other companies shouldn’t just be able to copy it.
Oh, I totally agree that this is the equivalent of me getting a $250 speeding ticket. My issue is not that it hurts Apple because it doesn’t. The cost just gets directly passed on the consumer. My issue is people are profiting from what should be considered an illegal scheme.
Just because you can steal money, does not make one a good leader. If you added in the Cartels and the politicians, Cook would be a small fry.
Ask Enron and Ken Lay about stealing money. Apple and Tim Cook are not in that realm, even if one dislikes Cook.
My best guess is this...
And because Optis filed the lawsuit in London.
With all due respect, I have a pretty good understanding of NPEs, having evaluated many potential transactions with or involving NPEs. (NPE is the industry term of art for patent trolls.) Your explanation does not actually rebut my comment.
I think we generally agree about what the world should look like: we both want a system that allows those that come up with ideas to reap the benefits. I tend to think that so-called patent trolls (in the industry, the term of art is Non-Practicing Entities, or NPEs) have a role in that system. The reward inventors get from their innovation is valuable property (a patent) that they can monetize, not simply a piece of paper. NPEs are companies that buy those patents because they have superior ability and resources to maximize the value of those patents as compared to the inventors. Inventors want to invent, they don't want to spend their time negotiating licensing agreements or, in the event of infringement, going after the infringers. That's why we allow them to sell their patents.
Nothing wrong with that. Stealing is bad, Tim.
Now that would be fun to watch - US-owned IP free-for-all as a result.
This is the endgame, not the beginning. UK courts are openly hostile to American companies and in this case they chose to ignore that the patents licensing charged to Apple was greater than other companies, which means the patent trolls did not comply with the fair licensing... but UK chooses to ignore that and somehow increase tenfold a penalty just to strike at a big American company. It is a farce.
They are the patent troll, they just steal IP and get away with it.
Apple was a co-founder of its competitor Acorn? Seriously?
Indeed, many of us know this.I think I found the problem
newsroom.arm.com
That's NOT where the Acorn RISC Machine chip was invented.The Official History of Arm
Arm’s journey to the world’s most pervasive compute platform covers a broad timeline of company milestones and product achievements.
Arm was officially founded as a company in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd, which was a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.), and VLSI Technology (now NXP Semiconductors N.V).
It has been suggested before that it be required of a company to be producing/selling something that uses the owned patent in order to have grounds to litigate it. I might suggest adding a limitation that the ORIGINATOR of the Patent (i.e. the inventor) is exempt, so they can freely license and enforce their patent without needing the resources to become a manufacturer.
