Apple's Continued Patent Offensive Poses Risks for Shareholders

[SactoGuy18]

Apple right now needs to start reading up on the cases against the United Shoe Machinery Company that the Federal government filed against them during the 1940's, citing the abuse of patent laws to keep out competitors.

While those cases did not result in significant convictions, they did tie up United Shoe so much legally it ruined the company. The FTC and DoJ Antitrust Division--not to mention the European Commission antitrust authorities!--could create a major legal h*** for Apple over this, and that could end up ruining Apple as a company in the long run.

In short, I think CEO Tim Cook may in the end negotiate a settlement with Google, Microsoft, and several other entities to avoid a nasty legal fight that is of nobody's best interest.

 

[brian.gillespie]

More than that, since it also usually gets people locked into the iTunes walled garden, and that's the most important thing to Apple.

That probably equates to less than $30 annually per device, I would call it the second most important thing.

If it were most important, you wouldn't be able to get Netflicks, Kindle Reader or webapps.

 

[leroypants]

Herpa android is a stolen derpa OS herpa derp apple shouldn't herpa negotiate with communist thieves derp ugly OS.

 

[danahn17]

"I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want." -- Steve Jobs​

But isn't the article saying that if Apple continues what it is doing, then companies will create workarounds that won't violate Apple's patents and will hurt Apple in the long term?

And if you're going to take the moral high road, then tell me why iOS5's notifications looks similar to Android's notification?

The FTC and DoJ Antitrust Division--not to mention the European Commission antitrust authorities!--could create a major legal h*** for Apple over this, and that could end up ruining Apple as a company in the long run.

I dont think so. Tell me, does Apple have a monopoly against anything? Even with all their lawsuits (frivolous or not), they have strong competition from Android phones and PCs. The antitrust argument against MS in the late 90s-early00s was much stronger yet was still widely debated. Plus, it'd be pretty stupid for the FTC or DOJ to attack Apple right now with baseless claims, especially since Apple is one of the bright stars in our weakened economy.

 

[hans1972]

Did Google patent it?

Anyway, to get around this patent, the Android browser simply lets you use single finger scrolling everywhere. When it reaches the end of a scrolling section, the scrolling continues with the whole screen.

Oops. That patent backfired on Apple by forcing their competitors to come up with a different (and better for new users) solution.

But did Google et al patent it? If not, Apple can just copy it and Apple has lost nothing.

It seems to be that Google is not very keen on patenting the stuff in Android and therefore a lot of the innovation that happens in Android is open to copying for everyone. Or am I wrong?

 

[Mouseinhat]

Herpa android is a stolen derpa OS herpa derp apple shouldn't herpa negotiate with communist thieves derp ugly OS.

Medic!

 

[marcusj0015]

I don't see it happening. it would ruin the whole simplicity Apple is known and loved for.

 

[cmChimera]

I don't know of any Fingerworks patents that would apply to any phones, much less the iPhone. Can you cite one?

I claimed that the technology powers the iPhone, not that the Fingerworks patents were actually about phones.

 

[farmboy]

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

Nonsense. Apple references appropriate prior art in their application. Failure to do so can result in an office action requiring resubmission, or the application can be rejected. The patent claims demonstrate how Apple has done things differently than the prior art. Try submitting a patent and see if the examiners will "grant [you] a patent anyway." Not gonna happen.

 

[Jkstraw]

Nothing is original

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.

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.

I think you hit it on the head with it being an individualistic style, albeit which they have developed through stealing ideas from a peer or others to better their "original" idea. Everything is copied in some form or fashion these days and reworked to fit a "new idea" and to say it is original to Apple or the HTC for that matter is a falsehood.

It is all about ego and lawyers fighting over something so similar one would have to dig deep into the code going pretty far back to find that one person or group of developers who actually pulled the code from another and worked it in to the UI they claim is "theirs". Ridiculous if you ask me but there is money at stake and when lawyers smell it, the sharks start circling.

If I were you kdarling I'd be doing other things with my time!

 

[Oletros]

Nonsense. Apple references appropriate prior art in their application. Failure to do so can result in an office action requiring resubmission, or the application can be rejected..

Or it can be granted and then invalidated when proved in court like a lot of times has occurred

 

[Oletros]

Except that the information in the book comes from Google's engineers and Andy Rubin directly, but sure, stick your head in the sand.

Except that the same Dianne Hackborn cited in that part of the book is the one saying that is false, that Android was hardware agnostic from the beginning and never had to change from BB to touch only.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

And to follow up on your military analogy, it's like Apple walks up to a crowd of people milling about, declares them all the enemy, pulls out their guns, and lays withering fire into the whole bunch. They wing one guy, and suddenly everyone is shouting out MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[theinsider]

The iPhone ironically is a bogus example of an "all touch" device, since it requires a physical button for its core UI navigation.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. It doesn't require it at all it is there as a convenience and one that many people like. I direct you to Settings -> General -> Accessibility -> AssistiveTouch.

This option will put a soft home button on your screen, along with other options, thus negating your argument that the home button is required.

 

[something3153]

That's like saying that you should sell nude photos to a peeping tom rather than taking him to court.

"I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s 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.

Except, if Steve's wrong (and it very much appears he was), it's not so much a matter of "morality" as "misplaced spite".

----------

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're seriously arguing that people don't know who makes the iPad?

 

[kdarling]

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.

Or authorized by Apple.

At the same time, the courts don't suffer fools gladly. If you're spending $500+ on a tablet or TV or computer or whatever, and you don't know there's a difference between Samsung and Apple, then you're probably on your own.

(Frankly, I think that people buying flatscreen TVs are far more likely to buy the wrong item. They all look similar, and they all come in the same flat box with a TV picture on it, and specs on the sides. Yet we don't see huge debates over that.)

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".

That scenario could only happen if the box said "Samsung iPad" on it.

 

[DeathChill]

Except that the same Dianne Hackborn cited in that part of the book is the one saying that is false, that Android was hardware agnostic from the beginning and never had to change from BB to touch only.

Any source for this? I can't find a thing by Dianne saying that and it would make little sense for it not to be true considering the information layer out by the book.

 

[thekev]

your own.

(Frankly, I think that people buying flatscreen TVs are far more likely to buy the wrong item. They all look similar, and they all come in the same flat box with a TV picture on it, and specs on the sides. Yet we don't see huge debates over that.)

I'm really quite tired of the debates over the look of hardware. Looks don't equate to quality or usability, and Apple has the resources to differentiate themselves in those areas. This doesn't mean that they always do so, but they possess that capability.

But isn't the article saying that if Apple continues what it is doing, then companies will create workarounds that won't violate Apple's patents and will hurt Apple in the long term?

And if you're going to take the moral high road, then tell me why iOS5's notifications looks similar to Android's notification?

There isn't a moral high road here. That's just the residual radiation of the reality distortion field.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Any source for this? I can't find a thing by Dianne saying that and it would make little sense for it not to be true considering the information layer out by the book.

I did find this when I was researching for an answer:

Work on Android started before the release of the iPhone, and at the time Android was designed to be a competitor to the Blackberry. The original Android prototype wasn’t a touch screen device. Android’s rendering trade-offs make sense for a keyboard and trackball device. When the iPhone came out, the Android team rushed to release a competitor product, but unfortunately it was too late to rewrite the UI framework.

https://plus.google.com/100838276097451809262/posts/VDkV9XaJRGS

Supposedly the guy who said this was Andrew Munn an intern for the Android team. It was initially a response to the Android UI graphics lag problem.

Not sure if it was quoted in the book "In the plex" But maybe that sheds some light on where it came from?

Maybe someone else can add more information to this.

 

[DeathChill]

I did find this when I was researching for an answer:



https://plus.google.com/100838276097451809262/posts/VDkV9XaJRGS

Supposedly the guy who said this was Andrew Munn an intern for the Android team. It was initially a response to the Android UI graphics lag problem.

Not sure if it was quoted in the book "In the plex" But maybe that sheds some light on where it came from?

Maybe someone else can add more information to this.

Yeah that's separate. The excerpt from In The Plex I was talking about says this:

At first the Android team worked on two different systems. One was called the Sooner; it was based on the existing Android prototype. With a keypad sitting underneath the screen, Sooner was designed to get into the market quickly. Sooner absorbed most of the energy in Android’s early days at Google. For the long term, Rubin’s group wanted to develop a more advanced platform with a touch screen. He dubbed that version the Dream. But in January 2007, Apple’s new iPhone redefined the smart phone. Withits touch screen, tightly integrated software, and sharp display, the iPhone had delivered the future ahead of schedule. Sooner became never, and Android went straight to the Dream.

 

[kdarling]

I did find this when I was researching for an answer:

"Work on Android started before the release of the iPhone, and at the time Android was designed to be a competitor to the Blackberry." - Munn

Supposedly the guy who said this was Andrew Munn an intern for the Android team. It was initially a response to the Android UI graphics lag problem.

Programmer Dianne Hackborn, who started with Palm and went on to Google, pretty much pointed out in her response, that almost everything Munn wrote was wrong. She also wrote:

"I just get tired of seeing people write egregiously wrong explanations about how Android works and worse present themselves as authorities on the topic. - Hackborn"

Not sure if it was quoted in the book "In the plex" But maybe that sheds some light on where it came from?

Nope, nothing about Blackberry in the book. Young Munn's writings don't make sense in any case. Back then, nobody would've thought of competing with RIM and their half-billion dollar push email patent lock on the enterprise market.

Google's search competitor was (and is) Microsoft, so it makes infinitely more sense that they would create an OS like Windows Mobile, with both non-touch and touch models. After all, the whole point of Android was to woo carriers with an OS that they didn't have to share the cost of, as was the case with WM (but not RIM).

Perhaps he was confused because keyboard-centric WM models such as the Q and Blackjack were popular at the time with kids who liked to text a lot... and they look like a large Blackberry.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude
I did find this when I was researching for an answer:

Quote:
"Work on Android started before the release of the iPhone, and at the time Android was designed to be a competitor to the Blackberry." - Munn
Supposedly the guy who said this was Andrew Munn an intern for the Android team. It was initially a response to the Android UI graphics lag problem.

Programmer Dianne Hackborn, who started with Palm and went on to Google, pretty much pointed out in her response, that almost everything Munn wrote was wrong. She also wrote:

"I just get tired of seeing people write egregiously wrong explanations about how Android works and worse present themselves as authorities on the topic. - Hackborn"

The Article you linked does describe how she shows how Graphics on Android OS works.

But it does not mention anything about or refutes Andrew Munns claims on how Android was initially prototype on the Blackberry, then switched to a touchscreen once the iPhone was released.

 

[Oletros]

The Article you linked does describe how she shows how Graphics on Android OS works.

But it does not mention anything about or refutes Andrew Munns claims on how Android was initially prototype on the Blackberry, then switched to a touchscreen once the iPhone was released.

Any source for this? I can't find a thing by Dianne saying that and it would make little sense for it not to be true considering the information layer out by the book.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1163095&p=22364453#p22364453

 

[linuxcooldude]

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1163095&p=22364453#p22364453

She does mention no rush after the iPhone was released in the forum you provided.

But she also said people were saying this that weren't there. But at least two sources were there that were saying this. One being Andrew Munn the other being from Steven Levy's source/sources which he had access inside Google.

 

[fmaxwell]

Except, if Steve's wrong (and it very much appears he was), it's not so much a matter of "morality" as "misplaced spite".

On December 20th, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) banned the sales of some HTC Android smartphones in the United States by ruling in favor of Apple in one of the patents. How does that show that Steve Jobs was "wrong"?

You claim that it "very much appears" that Jobs was wrong, so back up that assertion. Why does it appear that way when Apple is winning some of the cases?