Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders

[Oletros]

Yup stupid idiots that have taken Apple to become the largest company in the US/World this past year and have Apple sitting on $80 billion+ in the bank. Yup they must be idiots. Tell you what I'd like to be one of them idiots really.

Eh, I'm not the one calling them idiots, you can say that to the ones that think that.

To have trusted someone enough to put them on your board is not a mark of a idiot but of a business man that wants to see the company succeed by getting input from various sides of the industry. Now if that person has no personal morals and respect for his position that's on him not the people that trusted him in the first place. This is just a generalised comment and not one intended to be directed at Schmidt himself ... but if the shoe fits .

The problem is that Schmidt doesn't fit. And even Jobs with all of his hunger against Android NEVER accused Schmidt of wrong doing.

 

[supmango]

SJ wanted to kill Android. He said that he would go "thermonuclear war" on them to do it, and would gladly spend all 40 billion in reserves to do it (it is in his biography). I have no doubt that Apple's strategy is self-destructive, but it was Job's desire to right what he saw as wrong.

Job's was confident that the "open" approach would taint the innovation of the "i" products. In his own words "If you want to allow your products to be open to other hardware or software, you have to give up some of your vision." I think that Job's was correct on this point at least.

If this culture is still around at Apple, I am sure that the leadership will do whatever it takes to see SJ's wishes fulfilled.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

How dare anyone suggest that Apple could be accused of getting something wrong. Just a cursory look at the Professional markets proves they never, ever get anything wrong.

 

[Xtremehkr]

This whole patent debacle is a real mess, it's likely that at some point in the future it will all be sorted out.

Until that point I side with Apple when it comes to protecting IP. There has to be at least one innovator in the market to spur new technologies into use, at least one company that is willing to take a risk on a new product.

Apple has been that risk taking company for a long time now in the computing/electronics world. Hearing about how Google acquired Android and where they developed the ideas from was really disappointing. Google deserves to be punished for so blatantly ripping off Apple.

If the rewards for risk taking are diminished through people being able to steal your good ideas while not taking any risks of their own then there is diminished incentives to take risks on new technology.

How to fix the patent system is another story entirely, but Bloomberg seems to be trying to play a moderators role instead of a journalistic one.

 

[GoodWatch]

Apple has become 'The Man'. Apple has become the same monster it was fighting when they just started business. 1984 revisited. I know, I know, they have the right and moral obligation to protect their IP. But now it looks that they just want to destroy, crush, pulverise, annihilate and kill-off all competition. Yes, it's their right. Good for them.

 

[Oletros]

Hearing about how Google acquired Android and where they developed the ideas from was really disappointing. Google deserves to be punished for so blatantly ripping off Apple.

And the rip off where is exactly?

 

[donlphi]

Wondered how long this conversation would take...

I sort of figured the ones passionate about money, as opposed to those passionate about Apple's history and future, would be screaming for the licensing of patents and eventually everything Apple does (iOS, OSX, and other software that is Apple only). It seems like a quick money maker for people only concerned about making money for themselves, but it is going to devalue the brand which is what separates it from the rest of the companies.

There were some really rough years not that long ago, and now that Apple is on top, many people want to cash in and watch the brand disappear. I don't think it's a good idea.

Fighting these companies may be dipping into Apple's pockets a bit deeper than they initially hoped, but they need to put their foot down. People have been stealing from Apple for years. I hope they don't give up because a majority of the shareholders are worried fighting for what is right.

Now that Steve is gone, I think it is making it easier for the "greedy" to get their way. Hopefully, his vision for the company will continue. Fight to the death!

 

[adamtore]

Article may be misleading as its says " competitors from using Apple's intellectual property." stating it as fact where no court has said such a thing. Therefore, its faulty.

Yes?

 

[Rocketman]

Anybody with an either or point of view on this topic is necessarily wrong. The lawyers and managers themselves are determining which cases are WORTH bringing and which may have long or short term benefits and which may have blast back. The fact is patents are real and serve the intended purpose of excluding someone else's use of a particular idea. The value is clear based on the purchase price of patents and patent pools, as well as the fact there are companies whose sole purpose is to hold and enforce and litigate patents. That is the world we live in.

That said, the parts acquisition system is on a different track entirely from patents and injunctions.

Licensing is a decision made my managers not lawyers. The lawyers only come in when patents are violated or other practices are unlawful.

Apple is doing it right. They avoid stepping on other company's patents whenever possible, license the ones that are FRAND, try to license the ones that are not and make semi-crippled devices as compared to Android in some narrow specific areas because they have those patents or are more willing to violate patents and deal with it in court. That difference in tactics is why Apple is doing more of the suing and winning and Android and its vendors are doing more of the losing.

They could change their ethic. They could agree to license terms already offered by Apple, license those things Apple said "please" to, and generally settle rather than litigate where possible.

But that is not the world we live in either.

Rocketman

 

[Xtremehkr]

And the rip off where is exactly?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/two-photos-here-of-a-very-early-google-android-prototype/3197

The early Android prototypes look like knock offs of BlackBerry's but the final product resembles something that looks and feels a lot like an iPhone.

Clearly the intention was always to steal from the best ideas on the market, whether that was Blackberry or Apple.

Google has enough money to develop their own products and software. I don't like that Eric Schmidt seems to prefer the quick and easy route to product success over the slower, more arduous process, of painfully developing new and innovative ones.

I don't know how to fix the patent mess, but I believe in the value of protecting IP in order to protect innovation and risk taking.

 

[aeaglex07]

This whole patent debacle is a real mess, it's likely that at some point in the future it will all be sorted out.

Until that point I side with Apple when it comes to protecting IP. There has to be at least one innovator in the market to spur new technologies into use, at least one company that is willing to take a risk on a new product.

Apple has been that risk taking company for a long time now in the computing/electronics world. Hearing about how Google acquired Android and where they developed the ideas from was really disappointing. Google deserves to be punished for so blatantly ripping off Apple.

If the rewards for risk taking are diminished through people being able to steal your good ideas while not taking any risks of their own then there is diminished incentives to take risks on new technology.

IIRC Google didn't develop Android, they purchased it.

----------

Please read Post #15 above, where I explained why Apple did NOT get a trademark on "Multi-Touch".

I know apple wasn't granted the trademark. I was pointing out that they didn't invent MultiTouch but applied for the trademark

 

[Oletros]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/two-photos-here-of-a-very-early-google-android-prototype/3197

The early Android prototypes look like knock offs of BlackBerry's but the final product resembles something that looks and feels a lot like an iPhone.

Please, at least use an argument that hasn't been debunked a thousand times.

So no, you don't have any proof of rip off apart of your believings

 

[Xtremehkr]

Please, at least use an argument that hasn't been debunked a thousand times.

So no, you don't have any proof of rip off apart of your believings

There's no standard of proof high enough for Android fans so it's pointless to try and change your mind on that. I don't care if someone does or doesn't use an iPhone, it doesn't affect my experience at all.

But, as long as Apple continues to win in court it validates all of their claims because the actual innovators and patent holders are the ones who tend to win in court.

Hence Google investing in Motorola Mobile and Android owing Apple as much as $10 per phone sold.

Apple clearly has the advantage in IP, meaning Google took from Apple and not vice versa.

 

[vrDrew]

It's worth noting that the main source for the claim that Apple's IP litigation strategy is dangerous is someone who advises Android manufacturers. He's obviously not going to go on record as saying Apple is doing the right thing, and he's got to hold out some shred of hope after the string of significant legal defeats Android and it's partners have experienced.

Secondly his claim that Apple is inevitably going to suffer a significant IP legal setback seems based more on wishful thinking than on thoughtful analysis of the way that Apple, as a company, operates. Apple has a track record, going back literally decades, of buying companies or technology it feels is going to set it apart in future products. See Siri and its multitouch acquisitions for more recent examples of this in action.

This is the advantage that accrues to Apple as a market leader. Companies that are "fast followers", such as Samsung and HTC, might have patent portfolios of their own, but they tend to be in mature technologies and devices, such as DVD drives and TV screen functionality, where they pose little risk to Apple's future growth opportunities. Or they are subject to FRAND restrictions that mean they are, by definition, of limited value in terms of establishing market exclusivity.

Apple's management would be remiss in its obligations to shareholders if they DIDN'T take every reasonable step to protect, by means of litigation where appropriate, the leadership position the company has established. That this might be at odds with the wishful thinking of a consultant to Android suppliers ought not to be surprising to anyone.

 

[FSMBP]

Here's an idea. Don't assume to know what the OP was posting "between the line" and instead respond to the actual post.

You're arguing or attempting to argue something that isn't even being debated or contradicted. In essence - you're posting to yourself.

My post was meant to be read in between the lines. No reason to get angry at me - this is just an internet forum, buddy. Relax...

Oh, go reread post#3, and follow the poster's response along with all mine. My arguments are valid - I'm not sure why you say otherwise. He said "Apple stole a bunch of ideas from Android...Android demo was released before the iPhone". As my past two posts have stated, he was wrong.

 

[Oletros]

There's no standard of proof high enough for Apple fans so it's pointless to try and change your mind on that. I don't care if someone does or doesn't use an Android, it doesn't affect my experience at all.

But, as long as Apple continues to win in court it validates all of their claims because the actual innovators and patent holders are the ones who tend to win in court.

You have to read the news more carefully.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I love the thought process of Apple fanatics. Android was announced before the iPhone, Android phones contained numerous features before iPhones had them, and Apple has been blatantly stealing features from Android recently, but these "experts" believe that android manufacturers should be paying Apple licensing fees? Apple should be the ones paying the fees.

Well I am not sure if Apple ripped off numerous features, however I will say the new notification system is a blatant Android rip-off.

 

[aeaglex07]

Well I am not sure if Apple ripped off numerous features, however I must say the new notification system is a complete Android rip-off.

I prefer the term "User Requested"

 

[nick_elt]

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)

Apple worked hard to earn that money. They should be able to blow it on whatever they want to in peace.

 

[hot spare]

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Apple isn't interested in cross licensing. Their goal is to enforce their patents so competitors have to remove features and degrade the user experience on their platforms.

Indeed, HTC was just banned from importing phones that automatically recognize phone numbers and emails and turns them into action links. HTC has said they are going to remove the feature.

That is a serious degradation of the user experience. And it will drive people away from HTC. Apple can theoretically enforce the same patents against any other manufacturer as well, and probably will.

If Android as a whole lost that feature, Apple would certainly sell a lot more phones.

Hold your horses, not so fast. Take a breath!

HTC already developed a work-around. And lack of one feature does not destroy a company. Do we have to list how many features iphone lack? Did it stop Apple from growing?

Are you going to argue now iphone has all the features? From the very first page in the forums:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1298374/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1298769/

Also remember, some software patents are for a specific method to implement a feature. It has to infringe all the parameters mentioned in the patent statement. It's possible to work-around the method and develop a "similar" experience.

 

[Oletros]

I will say the new notification system is a blatant Android rip-off.

And you will be totally wrong

 

[Xtremehkr]

There's no standard of proof high enough for Apple fans so it's pointless to try and change your mind on that. I don't care if someone does or doesn't use an Android, it doesn't affect my experience at all.



You have to read the news more carefully.

If you're having to pay Apple a $10 fee for an Android phone then you're essentially paying more for less. I've yet to see an Android handset that matches an iPhone, despite a similar price.

Android feels like an imitation pair of Oakley sunglasses that you can pick up in Tijuana. From a distance they look just like Oakley's but when you really look at them they are inferior in terms of quality and build.

Apple wins far more often than they lose when it comes to IP, so they've demonstrated through winning that they have the upper hand when all of the smoke clears.

As an Android fan you can look forward to Google and HTC perhaps doing their own research and development, taking a few risks, and bringing something clearly superior to the market than what Apple has. The bar has been set.

 

[Oletros]

If you're having to pay Apple a $10 fee for an Android phone then you're essentially paying more for less.

Ah, now this is a fact?

Like the wrong picture you posted before?

As an Android fan...

Android fan? And you take this exactly why? From pointing that you were wrong?

I have corrected some wrong facts against the iPhone, does it converts me also in an iPhone fan?

 

[fabianjj]

Please show us, here on the forums, photos of said Android full touch screen phone before the iPhone. In fact, show me ANY phone that worked liked the iPhone before 2007.

2003, Neonode N1

 

[Xtremehkr]

Ah, now this is a fact?

Like the wrong picture you posted before?



Android fan? And you take this exactly why? From pointing that you were wrong?

I have corrected some wrong facts against the iPhone, does it converts me also in an iPhone fan?

Just quoting the article.

Rivette suggests that Apple could probably extract about $10 in licensing fees for each Android handset sold, but with Apple having a war chest of over $80 billion already, the company could use its intellectual property as leverage in other ways if it opted to settle with its opponents.