Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders

You do realize they are wining in their strategy

As much as it sucks these very lawsuits forced google to spend billions to acquire motorola for their patent portfolio. Forcing your competitor into spending billions for something they have not planned is a good strategy.
 
qaq said:
As much as it sucks these very lawsuits forced google to spend billions to acquire motorola for their patent portfolio. Forcing your competitor into spending billions for something they have not planned is a good strategy.
Click to expand...

That does sound good, until we consider that:

  • Apple also spent billions acquiring 6,000 Nortel patents, which are shared with others, and are mostly carrier oriented, not device.

  • Google got a heckuva good deal for their billions. Not just 24,000 mobile device patents from a pioneering company, but those patents surely include TV settop box ones as well.

    PLUS they got an entire mobile and settop box company with $3 billion in cash reserves who's almost back in the black, and who could continue for years without Google spending a penny on them.

The big question is: will Google use those patents offensively?

So again, the point is that Apple's policy might be smart for the short term, but long term has all sorts of potential to backfire. Apparently they believe delaying others is worth the risk, though.
 
Last edited:
James Howlett said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL ... 99% of consumers will NOT purchase a Samsung tab thinking its an Apple iPad! As for the other 1% they are likely to make this kind of mistake regardless of the similarity. You personally thought it was a iPad but, after approaching it, it became obvious to you that it was a Samsung. Now, if you said that you used it for 30 min thinking it was an iPad until someone else made it clear to you that it was a Samsung, we would have a problem!! Lol.
 
saving107 said:
Yup, because this is the same
android01.jpg

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/

as this
iphone2007-thumb.jpg


Its not like Google/Android shifted course when Apple unveiled the the iPhone in 2007

Now back on topic,



I've never commented on any of these paten lawsuit post, but I like this part of the article.
Click to expand...

Google and Android don't make phones.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
Google and Android don't make phones.
Click to expand...

I know they don't, but when Google purchased Android their intention was (as the story has been said) to compete against Blackberry's OS and RIM's hardware, but after Google or Eric Schmidt saw what Apple introduced in January 2007, they shifted course and re-wrote Android for a touch interface and partnered with HTC to release the G1 in October 2008.

I know they don't make Hardware, but they do partner with manufacturer's that do and have an influence on the design.
 
MrNomNoms said:
But they did re-work their GUI for a different form factor - you really think that Android is developed in some sort of bubble with no input from important partners?
Click to expand...

Re-worked how? Android has always been designed for different form factors.
 
kdarling said:
[*]Google got a heckuva good deal for their billions. Not just 24,000 mobile device patents from a pioneering company, but those patents surely include TV settop box ones as well.

PLUS they got an entire mobile and settop box company with $3 billion in cash reserves who's almost back in the black, and who could continue for years without Google spending a penny on them.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

Motorola, the one-time leader in its market, has a lot of assets, but its management was not one of those. Having worked for a company that once merged with another, I was curious which company's culture would win out.

I'm not sure Google has what it takes to change Motorola's ossified ways, but if they do, then all the more to them. It would be a win-win for the USA.

What may hamper Google making a quick gain from Motorola's acquisition is the SIZE of Motorola. It's a big bite. I've noticed that Apple is far more likely to ingest smaller companies that can wholly become part of Apple's culture.

Many of the mergers and buy-outs (Google-Motorola) of this century are far more rational than the crazy-quilt conglomerates of the '60s and '70s. Yet, some are way too costly, for the possible paybacks (BankAmericard-Countrywide). Time will tell whether Google will profit as much as they hope.
 
Zarmanka said:
Apple by cross licensing patents will allow competitors to commoditize the technology at faster pace therefore deflating Apple's profit margins. Apple does not have monopoly on innovation. More innovation by competitors is only good for consumers.
Click to expand...

Apple owns its patents. If you don't have patent protections when you bring out something new that becomes massively popular, then everybody (and his brother) will take the quick way out and copy what you did, in big ways and small. If patents mean something, other companies will be able to get market share by innovating themselves. Otherwise, they just copy. And that takes the incentive out of the hard business of innovating. That's what consumers want. If there were half-a-dozen platforms, some of them would be very successful and some of them would fail. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Why defend cheap knock-offs?
 
saving107 said:
I know they don't, but when Google purchased Android their intention was (as the story has been said) to compete against Blackberry's OS and RIM's hardware, but after Google or Eric Schmidt saw what Apple introduced in January 2007, they shifted course and re-wrote Android for a touch interface ....
Click to expand...

No one in the mobile industry ever thought that Google bought Android to go up against RIM. If anything it was to keep Microsoft from dominating mobile search.

Therefore, it was clear to us that Android would be patterned after Windows Mobile, which always included both full touchscreen and non-touch devices. (It's almost a pity that Google concentrated on the former after the iPhone came out. I think there's still a huge market for non-touch phones.)

Btw, it's shocking how many posters here think that RIM was the main or only smartphone style. They apparently have no idea how common WM touch phone models were around the world. Heck, at the same time that the first iPhone model went on sale, you could buy a WM touchscreen phone with a WVGA "retina" (313 ppi) screen (the Toshiba Portégé G900).

SandynJosh said:
I'm not sure Google has what it takes to change Motorola's ossified ways, but if they do, then all the more to them. It would be a win-win for the USA.
Click to expand...

It should help a lot that Google is buying the Mobility Division, not the entire Motorola company with its 100 years of history.

MMI is much younger, and geared towards younger devices... mobile and settop.
 
kdarling said:
So again, the point is that Apple's policy might be smart for the short term, but long term has all sorts of potential to backfire. Apparently they believe delaying others is worth the risk, though.
Click to expand...

Long term everyone will have to cross-license, short term apple gets advantage
seams to be a good position.
 
James Howlett said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference between an iPad and Galaxy Tab at 20ft you need to see an optometrist. But then again I have 20/15 vision so....:cool:
 
As a shareholder I'm not concerned. As an Apple enthusiast, I'm more concerned about the bad light it shines on Apple. Most people know nothing about patent law, they simply see Apple as a bully.

This is not my take, it's the truth I'm hearing from a variety of others I'm around during my travels. People considering the purchase of an iPad or iPhone.

While it's not weighing on their decision that I'm aware of, it is something they talk about unsolicited.

I'd like Apple to focus on keeping their image clean. I believe they can both protect themselves & yet not be so extreme as to have others like Samsung banned.
 
kdarling said:
.

For example, Apple was quick to use their patent for "slide-to-unlock with image and path" against everyone they sued. Now, with various judges saying that it's most likely obvious and invalid, they've withdrawn it from their attack arsenal. Other patents are not doing so well either.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. No one has said the 'slide to unlock' that uses an image and path is invalid. It was the attempt to patent any sliding movement to unlock that was questioned as being obvious and too broad. Once they added the whole option of a preset location and movement defined by an image etc, the too broad claims we dropped

----------
kdarling said:
.

Trademarks and trade dress must be aggressively protected and/or promoted. (E.g. the fact that Apple took over four years to sue Samsung over trade dress is why a California judge threw out their request for an injunction.)
Click to expand...

We don't know that Apple didn't attempt to define by merely asking Samsung etc to stop, which counts in the courts as action. We don't know the details of such things because the case isn't completed yet.

The lack of a prelim injunction was actually because Apple could show that letti g Samsung keep selling would a negative effect on Apple sales. When you look at things like Apple selling 100k a day in the US and Samsung shipping half that with only perhaps 1/4 selling to end users, you can see how the judge would come to his/her conclusion
 
drewyboy said:
I'd haqve to disagree very much with you. I'm suprised no one is saying this, but apple is staying away from licensing because they want to stay away from FRAND! It's very obvious. Apple feels they invented, therefore its "ours" to do as we please. If they start licensing to one, then to another, then to a few... it can easily be argued that it's industry wide, therefore it becomes FRAND.
Click to expand...

That's not how something becomes FRAND. FRAND patents are about vital and unavoidable tech. Like having 3G on a smartphone. Because there's really only one way to achieve that goal, not licensing those patents or jacking up fees is considered anti competitive.
 
I found this interesting

“A scorched-earth strategy is bad news because it doesn’t optimize the value of their patents -- because people will get around them,” said [intellectual property advisor Kevin] Rivette, whose clients include Android licensees. “It’s like a dam. Using their patents to keep rivals out of the market is like putting rocks in a stream. The stream is going to find a way around. Wouldn’t it be better to direct where the water goes?”


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.
The company could offer to drop its more than two dozen patent claims against Samsung in exchange for an agreement to hold off using Apple technology for six months or a year, he said. Cook could also try to get price breaks or guarantees that would give it greater access to Samsung parts, Rivette said.



So, stop suing us, take the ten dollars, and buy your parts from us.
And in six months we can build our own iPhone.

Crazy to pass on that kind of deal.

----------

Troll thread
 
Last edited:
charlituna said:
That is incorrect. No one has said the 'slide to unlock' that uses an image and path is invalid.
Click to expand...

For one example, the judge in the Netherlands case specifically said that adding the image and path was so obvious, that the patent would almost certainly fail an examination in Europe.

Shortly after that, Apple withdrew the patent from its injunction attempt against Samsung in Australia.

I don't rely on blogs or forums to get my facts. I read the full Dutch decision.

(Re: waiting too long to protect trade dress)

We don't know that Apple didn't attempt to define by merely asking Samsung etc to stop, which counts in the courts as action. We don't know the details of such things because the case isn't completed yet.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do know, since the details were published by the court in the injunction rejection. As I said, the judge was not impressed by Apple's claim that Samsung had been "copying them since 2007", since Apple did not complain until 2011:

ca_delay_decision.png

And...

ca_delay_decision2.png
 
Last edited:
I just returned from a foray to the Radio Shack store (what an out-of-date store name) and was struck by all the look-alike non-iPhones! Rows and rows of wannabes. RS kept the iPhones and other Apple products in separate displays. If it said "Apple" on it, it was sold out. Even the display units were sold.

People had to crawl over the brand X phones to buy the Apple products. iPhones, iPads, and every kind of iPod were sold completely out.

As much as the brand X companies would like to turn the whole marketing thing into a spec war, like the PC market, people are just not buying into it. They want what they want: A superior user experience!

I think price still makes a difference, but if the buyer is using price to determine WHICH Apple product they can afford, then it's all good! :)
 
kdarling said:
Btw, it's shocking how many posters here think that RIM was the main or only smartphone style. They apparently have no idea how common WM touch phone models were around the world. Heck, at the same time that the first iPhone model went on sale, you could buy a WM touchscreen phone with a WVGA "retina" (313 ppi) screen (the Toshiba Portégé G900).
Click to expand...

Uhm, a bit disingenuous to tout a device that required either a stylus, navigation key or repurposing the fingerprint ID sensor for a mouse. Not exactly the finger touch paradigm popularized by the iPhone.
 
TMay said:
Uhm, a bit disingenuous to tout a device that required either a stylus, navigation key or repurposing the fingerprint ID sensor for a mouse. Not exactly the finger touch paradigm popularized by the iPhone.
Click to expand...

WM touch phones didn't require a stylus or keys. Those were simply additional conveniences. (The iPhone ironically is a bogus example of an "all touch" device, since it requires a physical button for its core UI navigation. WM did not. You didn't have to move away from the WM touchscreen in order to launch a different app, or even to change volume.)

Note that I never said that WM itself was super finger friendly (although shells and apps for it certainly could be, and were). I said that RIM was not the only smartphone pattern, and that touchscreens were common.

The point is that it's overwhelmingly likely that the Android project was always geared towards both types, because WM / CE had been so since the beginning of the century... and that is who Android's competitor and pattern was, not the RIM OS which was in a business niche of its own.
 
Last edited:
Oletros said:
Apple didn't "take" one of Android's implementations which is noted for being much less power efficient than Apple's, they used one of Android's implementations, freeze programs in background to not take CPU cycles

----------



Have you looked the date of that picture?

Yeeeesss, November 2.007.

Can you post ANY picture of an Android prototype prior to November 2.007?



Another false claim. Why people doesn't stop of saying those silly things?
Click to expand...

Absolutely true....stop believing the gossip and do some serious research.

----------
kdarling said:
That does sound good, until we consider that:

  • Apple also spent billions acquiring 6,000 Nortel patents, which are shared with others, and are mostly carrier oriented, not device.

  • Google got a heckuva good deal for their billions. Not just 24,000 mobile device patents from a pioneering company, but those patents surely include TV settop box ones as well.

    PLUS they got an entire mobile and settop box company with $3 billion in cash reserves who's almost back in the black, and who could continue for years without Google spending a penny on them.

The big question is: will Google use those patents offensively?

So again, the point is that Apple's policy might be smart for the short term, but long term has all sorts of potential to backfire. Apparently they believe delaying others is worth the risk, though.
Click to expand...

LOL....everybody knows Googles purchase of Motorola was the stupidest move on the planet....they got junk.....do some research....lol.....I guess Google is trying to make some lemonade now....lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back