Yes, you're absolutely right. Apple should make all of it's business decisions based upon the screechings of Melissa Lee and the others at CNBC.
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's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, you're absolutely right. Apple should make all of it's business decisions based upon the screechings of Melissa Lee and the others at CNBC.
re original article
yup i see this is a factor for share holder concern - not much though
as long as aapl sells into more profit vs expenses and a stable p/e ratio stable we should be fine
just split the stock 4 to 1 so more people will buy in creating more share holders
if anything - do not do a dividend
yup i see this is a factor for share holder concern - not much though
as long as aapl sells into more profit vs expenses and a stable p/e ratio stable we should be fine
just split the stock 4 to 1 so more people will buy in creating more share holders
if anything - do not do a dividend
Yes, is better to believe in what is said in a book that believeng Google engineers
Apple did hire the guy that originally designed the Android notification system? Really? Can you show his name?
Ah, so the Galaxy Tab and its connector are what ANDROID has rip off from Apple? Ups, and I always has thought that Android is an operating system and not a connector or a tablet.
And now, can you answer what rip off is ANDROID?
----------
Dutch judges said Apple to throw away this patent from the trial because it will be invalidated.
----------
Perhaps the one that must do a good research is good.
Any proof or is only the same urban legend?
My God, no one can proof anything about this and continue to spitting the same silly things.
I know that Apple hired that guys but I wasn't answering that.
someone said the false claim that iOS 5 notifications are a rip off of Android and he said that that's not true because Apple hired the guy that originally designed them. And this is also false.
iOS 5 are not a rip off because all those systems have to have similar designs on a tiny touch screens like the ones in smartphones.
Hm...7 pages of dillydally about who-copied-whom. Entertaining but completely missing the point of the article.
Especialy to those stating "Apple wins more cases so this tactic is good" I'll put the current situation in perspective.
The recent action by Apple against HTC resulted in a "win" for Apple. But at what cost?
Apple brought forward 10 Patents and the ruling states that only one patent is infringed upon. This in return basicaly makes the other 9 Patents worthless as it is now court certified that those 9 Patents will not have to be licensed by any Android manufacturer.
Think about it in a battle situation: you have a certain amount of ammunition you fire 9 rounds and hit nothing and only the last bullets puts a tiny scratch on the enemy who is fit to fight on after applying a small bandage.
Outcome? Your gun needs reloading or anyone with a big stick will take you out...or back to Patents: if you get your patents devalued at a rate of 10:1 you are charging towards being VERY vulnerable.
Then again i am one of those lousy beings that actualy invests in a company to make a profit or even secure my kids education.... EVIL
Especialy to those stating "Apple wins more cases so this tactic is good" I'll put the current situation in perspective.
The recent action by Apple against HTC resulted in a "win" for Apple. But at what cost?
Apple brought forward 10 Patents and the ruling states that only one patent is infringed upon. This in return basicaly makes the other 9 Patents worthless as it is now court certified that those 9 Patents will not have to be licensed by any Android manufacturer.
Think about it in a battle situation: you have a certain amount of ammunition you fire 9 rounds and hit nothing and only the last bullets puts a tiny scratch on the enemy who is fit to fight on after applying a small bandage.
Outcome? Your gun needs reloading or anyone with a big stick will take you out...or back to Patents: if you get your patents devalued at a rate of 10:1 you are charging towards being VERY vulnerable.
Then again i am one of those lousy beings that actualy invests in a company to make a profit or even secure my kids education.... EVIL
We all know 2012 will be another great year for Android with Apple losing even more market share. Take a look when your out and about and most people have an Android phone now. Google are doing a great job pushing the smartphone industry forward leaving Apple in the dust and having to resort to stupid lawsuits to try and stop Androids domination. We have all said it before, nothing can stop Android.
That's like saying that you should sell nude photos to a peeping tom rather than taking him to court.
"I dont want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I wont want it. Ive got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, thats all I want." -- Steve Jobs
Does that make the motivation clearer? I realize that the concept of morality is lost on Wall Street one-percenters, but many of us in the 99% still get it.
I think that is a mischaracterization of what happened.
To begin with, Apple brought a case to the ITC (Intl. Trade Commission) against HTC. ITC rulings apply only on a case by case basis, and in no way impair Apple's ability to use the patents in other cases. It is important to recognize that a) there is a much higher standard of proof required to win an ITC injunction than would be in a normal civil trial; b) that in order to win an injunction the patent must be both valid AND infringed; and c) Apple was ultimately succesful in attaining its goal, which was to force HTC to modify its functionality in order to avoid a ban.
HTC may blithely claim they can "work around" the infringed patent (that which makes replying to a phone number or e-mail address in an incoming message) but eventually all of these workarounds will begin to add up to a seriously diminished user experience.
To follow up on your military analogy, I would say that a unit that fired ten rounds at a troublesome enemy, one of which struck home and disabled them, while sustaining no friendly casualties, would consider it a tremendously succesful engagement.
In all seriousness, are you delusional or simply trolling? Your post evidences an inability to deal with reality.
Last edited:
Except that the information in the book comes from Google's engineers and Andy Rubin directly, but sure, stick your head in the sand.
Life After Steve
IMHO, I predict this to be the first such story that we will see in the months to come. To quote the late George Carlin, Apple is about to go through a period of "PUSSIFICATION." Jobs aggressively defended his intellectual property and did so in a way that held true to his PRINCIPLES.
With new leadership in there - you can already see it now - devices playing nice with other company's devices so all the fat cats enjoy a larger bottom line.
Steve fought tooth and nail to control Apple's intellectual property and to make the Apple experience great - THIS is why we love Apple. Steve probably didn't worry about making money, shareholders, employee comp and benefit packages - - etc. His drive to create excellence and success are why Apple is alive today and one of the most lucrative companies in the world.
Apple will not maintain its success if the company is steered solely by financiers that think bottom line instead of user experience satisfaction.
Steve was passionate about what he did and how he stood up for the company - that is what made Apple incredible - Passion - not the pussification of principles or the greedy act of SELLING OUT.
Bad Move, Fat Cats.
IMHO, I predict this to be the first such story that we will see in the months to come. To quote the late George Carlin, Apple is about to go through a period of "PUSSIFICATION." Jobs aggressively defended his intellectual property and did so in a way that held true to his PRINCIPLES.
With new leadership in there - you can already see it now - devices playing nice with other company's devices so all the fat cats enjoy a larger bottom line.
Steve fought tooth and nail to control Apple's intellectual property and to make the Apple experience great - THIS is why we love Apple. Steve probably didn't worry about making money, shareholders, employee comp and benefit packages - - etc. His drive to create excellence and success are why Apple is alive today and one of the most lucrative companies in the world.
Apple will not maintain its success if the company is steered solely by financiers that think bottom line instead of user experience satisfaction.
Steve was passionate about what he did and how he stood up for the company - that is what made Apple incredible - Passion - not the pussification of principles or the greedy act of SELLING OUT.
Bad Move, Fat Cats.
It is true that when you decide to do a finger-friendly system, the designer will most likely come up with solutions that work in ways similar to other such systems.
For example, around 2000 I did an enterprise PDA app which required filling in a set of fields. Rather than using the tiny Windows CE onscreen keyboard, I would pop up different context sensitive keyboards of my own design from the bottom of the screen. Phonepad, number pad, alpha, date or time entry, etc. Not unlike the context sensitive keyboards of today which also show URL related items. It's just a natural design progression.
Also, arguing about which "company" came up with something is missing another major reason behind similarities. It's not the companies who invent things; it's a rather limited set of highly desired individuals who move from company to company, taking their style with them. The company's role is in allowing them to implement what they want. Sometimes they have to leave a company to do that.
Last edited:
Except, Steve Jobs is not Apple, not the sole share holder of Apple and is not perfectly aligned with the interest of others owning Apple. Oh well, he's out of the picture now - so who cares.
Let's do the math
10 bucks per Android
320 bucks per iPhone
If hobbling Android results in converting 1 in 10 customers to iPhone; that means $320 dollars profit vs $100. That's over 300% increase in revenue. Seems like a no-brainer.
Good decision Apple.
10 bucks per Android
320 bucks per iPhone
If hobbling Android results in converting 1 in 10 customers to iPhone; that means $320 dollars profit vs $100. That's over 300% increase in revenue. Seems like a no-brainer.
Good decision Apple.
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....
Samsung's lawyers failed at a much closer distance.
But you are misrepresenting the situation: The question is not whether you can distinguish them when they are held side by side. The question is whether someone who sees a Samsung tablet, with no iPad anywhere near, would believe that it is an iPad. And whether someone who intended to buy an iPad might buy the Samsung tablet by mistake. And that person might not know or might not be sure who is the maker of the iPad, so printing "Samsung" on the tablet doesn't help. That person might say "I thought the iPad was made by Apple, but I must have been wrong, because it is made by Samsung".
You might be right that that's what Apple is thinking would happen, worst case.
More than that, since it also usually gets people locked into the iTunes walled garden, and that's the most important thing to Apple.
For all its secrecy about products, Apple usually wears its corporate fears and desires on its sleeve in their lawsuits. When asked in Australia why they were so adamant about stopping Samsung, they said that they worried that most people who bought Android would stay Android... thus losing them a potential Apple convert forever.
Based upon your answer, you actually didn't understand what that analyst is saying and you also misunderstood what is really happening in HTC's and some other cases. The features won't get removed -- what happens is that the infringing IMPLEMENTATIONS of the features in question will be REPLACED with versions that do NOT infringe on specific patents, rendering said patents USELESS.
So whoever licenses their patents to others - just like Microsoft does it - is actually doing the smarter thing, because at least they get to collect some license fees while Apple with its current Stalinist course of action eventually won't have anything at all. And that is a very probable risk for Apple's shareholders.
On the long run, "Divide and Rule" has always been more successful than "Seek and Destroy". Walled Gardens only work for short periods of time, because people will always find a way out of a prison and a way around a monopoly. Always.
You really bought into the hype and the person cult around the marketing product Steve Jobs. You get to hear different stories about him when you talk to people who actually worked with him or met him in tough business meetings. But I'm not here to judge his personal qualities or shortcomings, especially not when he is no longer around to prove me right or wrong.
But still, the entire iOS and iTunes ecosystem is a testament to the fact that he certainly was not all about "principles" and "user experience". Apparently, his "passion" was more about locking customers into HIS digital prison and making them dependent on HIS "visionary" products than his passion was about providing his customers a great user experience or, heaven forbid, CHOICE.
Steve Jobs' last iOS-based product designs are beautiful to look at and in their limited way nice to use and work with, but they are all digital Venus fly traps. Once you're in, you're not supposed to ever get out again. Some articles in the press and on the net have compared the average Apple "fan" to "hostages suffering from the Stockholm syndrome".
Article makes little sense
Even if Apple licenses their patents, companies, over time, will still try to implement workarounds so they can avoid those fees. Licensing your patents allows the competitors to keep progressing their products. Time to market is more important to Apple and this approach can/should cost competitors time and resources. It also sets a precedence so competitors are much less likely to copy Apple IP going forward. This is a great approach for Apple as they are the most cash flush company in their space.
Even if Apple licenses their patents, companies, over time, will still try to implement workarounds so they can avoid those fees. Licensing your patents allows the competitors to keep progressing their products. Time to market is more important to Apple and this approach can/should cost competitors time and resources. It also sets a precedence so competitors are much less likely to copy Apple IP going forward. This is a great approach for Apple as they are the most cash flush company in their space.
Maybe they will go for the more constructive licensing approach now that Steve's gone. He was always the stubborn "war fighting" one who screamed about wanting to wipe Samsung off the face of the planet etc.
That was stated in connection with action for injunction. Here's a multiple choice question for you. When asked by a court why one is seeking an injunction, which requires irreparable harm if not granted, the respondent says:
A. We want consumers to have the best products and don't want Samsumg mucking it up and later paying us some money for infringement; or
B. If people buy android they will stay with android, a situation which can't be repaired or damages accurately measured, which is why we are seeking equitable relief.
Think hard. Take your time.
Last edited: