Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders

[hot spare]

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.

Well, if you start going back and start scratching the history lessons, you will know that Apple (like everyone else) is ripping off Motorola. Apple is feeding on the innovation from Motorola. What was Apple doing when Moto was spending millions on R&D to develop the first mobile?? Why did they have to rip-off Moto's invention? They had to take the easy route and just copied what pioneers did. If they are innovative, why did they have to blatantly copy the idea of a mobile phone? If they were innovative, they should have made a product which is not a "mobile phone".
Now we have a TV coming up. Why are they copying the concept of TV? If their ideas are so revolutionary, why make a TV - in other words they are copying the idea of a TV. Make something else - which is not a TV. Invent something which nobody knows - maybe a 3D holograph display?? No they won't, because they are copycats like everyone else.

 

[Juan007]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Android is a stolen product, end of story. Apple should not negotiate with thieves.

 

[Winter Charm]

There were prototypes of touchscreen androids as well....

prototypes =/= products.

Apple had prototypes of touch screens before the NEWTON.

 

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Android is a stolen product, end of story. Apple should not negotiate with thieves.

And if judges doesn't give me the reason I will stop breathing

 

[Winter Charm]

Well, if you start going back and start scratching the history lessons, you will know that Apple (like everyone else) is ripping off Motorola. Apple is feeding on the innovation from Motorola. What was Apple doing when Moto was spending millions on R&D to develop the first mobile?? Why did they have to rip-off Moto's invention? They had to take the easy route and just copied what pioneers did. If they are innovative, why did they have to blatantly copy the idea of a mobile phone? If they were innovative, they should have made a product which is not a "mobile phone".
Now we have a TV coming up. Why are they copying the concept of TV? If their ideas are so revolutionary, why make a TV - in other words they are copying the idea of a TV. Make something else - which is not a TV. Invent something which nobody knows - maybe a 3D holograph display?? No they won't, because they are copycats like everyone else.

It's one thing to make a phone, but copying the look and feel of someone's particular phone, that's where the ripoffs begin.

Once a technology is established, everyone should create their own twist to it. Instead, google just copies apple's approach.

Motorola made the first cell phone. Apple came up with the first handheld computer that could also make phone calls.

 

[Oletros]

Apple came up with the first handheld computer that could also make phone calls.

Mmm, no?

 

[quagmire]

prototypes =/= products.

Apple had prototypes of touch screens before the NEWTON.

Yes, but what the person I was replying to had a BB style Android prototype saying that was going to be Android before the iPhone showed up. I am just saying Google had touchscreen prototypes too.

Could the iPhone have tipped the scale to the touchscreen model? Sure, but Google had both in the works.

 

[Mr Bigs]

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.

You're being very one sided now let the other manufacturers
like Motorola,Samsung and many others that Apple infringes on do the same thing. A Boomerang can be a very nasty weapon to the user if used improperly.

 

[gnasher729]

You need to learn about prior art. Apple patents stuff when prior art already exists. And our broken USPTO grants them the patent anyway.

Well, yes, that is supposed to be how it works. Inventors are supposed to take prior art and improve on it and then patent their improvements. And those improvements then become prior art for the next round of improvements.

Prior art only counts against a patent if the jump from the prior art to the patent is obvious. Since a year or two, it also counts as obvious to take two or more sets of prior art and combine them, if the combination only does what one would obviously expect it to do.

 

[paul4339]

... Apple came up with the first handheld computer that could also make phone calls.

What about all those smartphones made by Palm?

.

 

[gnasher729]

You would think Apple has a clear idea of what patents are infringed upon and worth defending. Surely the courts would severely punish plaintiffs who get a reputation for frivolous lawsuits.

Apple will win most of these cases. It will be interesting to see what comes as a result.

You don't get punished for a reputation. You might get punished for a frivolous lawsuit, but the bar for that is very, very, very high.

In the mobile phone business, patents are either required (if I need to use some patent to make my phone talk to AT&T's phone mast, then there is hardly a way around that) and then the patent holder _must_ license it, or they are not required, and then anyone can either live without the patented thing, or work around it in some way.

 

[SandynJosh]

Actually, if I recall, they found another way to implement it that Apple hasn't patented yet. HTC will lose absolutely no sales from this.

You recall wrong. HTC removed the feature that Apple's patent covered, then called the feature unnecessary.

In fact, HTC was initially sued over 10 patents. Apple won with just one. The most trivial one.

Apple was seeking to have the HTC blocked from being imported due to the 10 patents. Apple still has the right to take HTC to court while the phones are being imported. It did not lose the suit, it just moved to a different court.

Where most companies look for solutions that profit the current quarterly or annual report, Apple thinks longer term. This kind of thinking/planning is not part of how most analysts' brains are wired, so I'm not surprised that they may fault Apple for how it does things.

 

[aerok]

What about all those smartphones made by Palm?

.

The iPhone was created before the first Palm and before the second smartphone (Because the iPhone was created first) named IBM Simon released in 1992. Isn't it obvious Apple held it back for 15 years before releasing the iPhone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

----------

You recall wrong. HTC removed the feature that Apple's patent covered, then called the feature unnecessary.

Well I doubt any consumer would refuse to buy an HTC just because of that small feature removed...

 

[law guy]

This reminds me of what analysts (and a lot of the industry writers) said about Apple's refusal to license it's OS to clone makers to optimize its value. And then Apple did and it was a pronounced disaster as clone makers employed machines that undercut Apple and made it difficult to sell its own hardware at a profit.

 

[DeathChill]

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

It wasn't actually disproved and was proven to be true by In The Plex. Android was originally being developed for a device similar to the Blackberry and the iPhone caused them to switch directions. I've posted the quote a couple of times so I'm sure you saw it.

However, they did note that Andy Rubin wanted to create a touch screen phone in the future but their initial focus was not on that device.

 

[old-wiz]

For most corporations, cooperation is a dirty word, especially if you think you are the lord high corporation.

 

[dokujaryu]

Am I the only one that thinks like 3 times before clicking the "comments" section of these articles?

 

[balamw]

IMHO Apple is simply using their patents as a "brake" to their competitors. They don't have to win damages or permanent injunctions to move ahead.

Time to market is a big deal in this business and simply keeping other competing devices off the market for a while combined with a well greased supply chain can turn into big bucks. These big bucks can then be used to further cement the supply chain etc...

This is basically how Apple took over the tablet market with the iPad.

Overall I agree with the article and many of the comments here that this is a risky strategy when it eventually backfires.

One key risk kdarling has already alluded to is that competitors come up with workarounds that are superior...

B

 

[James Howlett]

And the rip off where is exactly?

How about the Dock Connector to start.

I work in for an Apple Reseller and was on vacation in the States, I saw a stand in best buy and from about 20 ft away I saw what looked to be an iPad, but something was off. As I got closer I noticed it wasn't an iPad but a Samsung tablet. If i'm making that mistake and I work with the product every day how many consumers are making that mistake. I do not mean to be harsh or saying I am infallible in my knowledge but I deal with customers who are IDIOTS on a daily basis. I do feel Samsung is trying to cash in at least a little on consumers who can't tell the difference and will legitimately think they have an iPad no matter what it says on the box.

 

[kyjaotkb]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

My Sony Ericsson from like 2005 already recognized phone numbers and Other stuff in SMS. There are a ton of methods to use for implementing the feature. HTC must be laughing.

 

[James Howlett]

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.

Is it a rip off if you buy the guy who originally designed it?

Seriously I would like to know opinion on this.

 

[MrNomNoms]

This is exactly what I've been saying for years:

1) Those who license their patents are assured of sharing even in their competitors' success.

2) It's not a longterm smart idea for Apple to force their competition to come up with more clever solutions or workarounds (and likely patent them).

3) Eventually the tables will be turned on Apple, and someone will refuse to license to them, just as they have refused to license to others. Bad karma.

Agreed. Many of the organisations Apple is going up against also provide components for Apple's products (from i-device through to Mac's) - is Apple really going to be that daft to put their supply chain at risk over a few patents? it seems that Steve Jobs spirit of the 'grumpy old man' has taken over Tim Cook and further a stupid legal battle further. What confuses me is why it is happening in the first place? not that I condone such logic but I could understand if Apple were some two bit struggling company looking for a quick way to make a buck but i-devices are rocketing in sales, bringing in the cash so why do they feel the need to undermine Android vendors?

If it funny though, the more powerful Apple grows the more their behaviour makes Microsoft in the early days appear as though they were a living saint. If Apple keeps going the way they are then this may be the last set of Apple devices I'll own - I know my one switch won't make all the difference but at least I'll know I'm on the right side of the battle.

Regarding the issue of form-factors and how things changed - things haven't really changed all that much from their original design, they just added another form factor that Android could be loaded onto. Right now you can get a Samsung Galaxy SII or you can get a HTC Chacha which has the qwerty keyboard just like RIM device. Again, I am confused as to why Apple is even chasing such issues in the first place - to me it seems to be a combination of greed and paranoia rather than a genuine case of being ripped off.

 

[DakotaGuy]

And you will be totally wrong

It looks and behaves in a similar manner. If that is good enough for Apple to sue over it's good enough to say that the notification system in iOS is an Android rip-off.

 

[Benjamins]

How about the Dock Connector to start.

I work in for an Apple Reseller and was on vacation in the States, I saw a stand in best buy and from about 20 ft away I saw what looked to be an iPad, but something was off. As I got closer I noticed it wasn't an iPad but a Samsung tablet. If i'm making that mistake and I work with the product every day how many consumers are making that mistake. I do not mean to be harsh or saying I am infallible in my knowledge but I deal with customers who are IDIOTS on a daily basis. I do feel Samsung is trying to cash in at least a little on consumers who can't tell the difference and will legitimately think they have an iPad no matter what it says on the box.

the only reason no one's calling samsung products a KIRF is because they are not based in China.

 

[kdarling]

How about the Dock Connector to start.

Yet Apple has never complained about it. What does that say?

No one buys a tablet based on the look of the dock connector. Or box. Or inside packaging.

I do feel Samsung is trying to cash in at least a little on consumers who can't tell the difference and will legitimately think they have an iPad no matter what it says on the box.

I see it quite differently.

Samsung isn't trying to trick anyone. They're simply trying to offer an alternative that cashes in on the current hot style.

It's like the way that some far less expensive cars emulate Mercedes or Lexus shapes, or how some less expensive SUVs use Hummer or X5 cues. It's not about fooling you, it's about using the same pleasing shapes that sell the more expensive and/or well known products.

Samsung isn't cloning anything. They're copying the style, not the substance.

It's perhaps too subtle a distinction for some, but obvious to those of us who've seen this time and again.