Unfair licensing terms by Apple. It's not a simple matter of "pay me and I won't sue your shoes off".
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.
Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath
Yep, Google should shut down, sell everything and distribute it to the shareholders.
But teh google is teh most popularz company on teh interwebz. Look at all those thumbs up they get at other sites. Obviously MS and Apple can fold it up we only need Google since they are the most innovate company of all time.
And only Apple does this?The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath
Actually, what Google is saying is that they should be able to just pay up, license the patents to use them.
For comparison - Microsoft has successfully proven that many parts of Android are covered by patents they own. So they license the patents to those making Android handsets. Android handset makers can continue to make and sell their devices, Microsoft make money, everybody's happy. I read one analysis that Microsoft makes more money from Android handsets than from Windows Phone handsets.
Microsoft didn't do that because they had a requirement to do so, they just decided it was good business. What Google is saying is that it should be a requirement, and that Apple has an obligation to do the same.
Now, I believe that it would be good business for Apple to take most of its patents and put together a licensable portfolio that would resolve most of the lawsuits. The goal of "we're going to kill Android" simply isn't going to be achieved, and in terms of expense, PR, and time/distraction, it's not worth it.
Apple does well because it provides a superior user experience, and it's not the patents that does it. It's that, frankly, Apple gives a damn about the user experience, it's a key element at all stages of development. As opposed to "OK, we're going to create some great tech. We've got great tech. Let's now hand it off to the UI team put an interface on it."
One more thing - I don't think Google really wants to set up some sort of legal standard of "if people like your tech and infringe you must license it to them". It's just the classic excuse when accused for wrongdoing "but they do it too". And since Apple does license their standards patents (like portions of H.264) under FRAND, well, they need to redefine what the wrongdoing was
The issue is Apple patented the **** out of the tech, even patents that they aren't using, just to keep other companies from developing other methods. Apple didn't just cover their bases, they patented tech they bought or even thought of, thus blocking other companies from many, many, many avenues of exploration. It's tantamount to patenting air, careful, you may have to pay to breath
which begs the question...... what's stopping other companies from thinking up those idea before Apple?
Indeed. Not only are they obvious. Apple didn't invent the grid layout. Or multi touch
Power steering, Rack and pinion, or recirculating ball? Gull-wing doors, or doors that open to the front? Or to the back? Many of the first cars had no doors at all.
I do see your point, but I guess I'm saying that these simple things that seem obvious now are refinements of previous solutions, or new solutions to old problems. If a product is well-designed, these solutions will look like the most obvious thing in the world.
Ah, I see what you did there:
If Google wants to implement the same feature in the same way, and someone else has a patent on it, then it's a "BS patent".
If Google has a patent, any patent, even if it has already been declared a standards essential patent and been committed to a FRAND agreement, then it is a "defensive patent".
If Google can't think of any other way to implement a feature, then surely that implementation of the feature must be declared "essential" and forcefully opened up for the use of all. Even if there is no "standard" under discussion, and even if that feature isn't really essential, Google can redefine those terms to suit itself.
As though it is essential that every touch device operate the exact same way; as though touch computing necessitates the elastic band snap effect when you scroll a list to the end; as though touch computing necessitates a disappearing relative scroll indicator, etc.
Really, Google, your high-handedness and sense of entitlement has to stop. It's time for you to grow up. First you think that everything on the Internet is yours, including the dictionary. Then, when you get into hardware, you think anything you see and that you can put on your device is yours. After all, "it's up to Apple to innovate and stay ahead, isn't it?" (so that you can appropriate that, too).
Yeah, Apple is that selfish child on the playground that has found a way to keep the bully from taking everyone's lunch money; and the bully is forced to do just as much work as all the other kids do for their allowance, or find another racket.
Last edited:
Sure, parallel inventions happen all the time.
But Google didn't. And they aren't even claiming they did.
Money, honey. Who knows they didn't? We don't. We also don't know that Google didn't try to buy Fingerworks but lost to Apple's billions even back in 2002-3. We. Do. Not. Know.
My point, I do not like any company, Apple or Google, stifling tech and this is what is happening.
Apple put billions in to R&D, and they have been reaping the benefits since. I don't buy that argument.
Pro-Apple people on this board should be furious. Since its inception, the iPhone has become increasingly less revolutionary with every version. Even now it appears as though Apple intends to do the minimum to keep up. As an Apple enthusiast myself, I pull for the opponent to compete. Now Apple has made a bid to become IBM. Jesus 1996 (let alone 1984) was a LONG time ago.
In full agreement. Gestures, Grid Layout, and even Slide to Unlock are not innovative enough to justify patent protection. Other more complex things should be patented, for example Cloud technology and other complex designs. I don't think Google should be able to copy everything, but at the same time Apple shouldn't be able to just patent everything they do. Both are in the wrong here, though it really needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I look at patenting the Grid Layout, as trying to patent the Maximize button on any OS. It's just too basic of a function to patent, patents are supposed to be complex innovative ideas... not just basic everyday design choices. There's a patent war issue going on right now, where patent firms buy up every single patent they can find to sue other companies for petty patent infringements. There's a serious issue with patent abuse out there, and all of these companies are in the wrong.
I see this a lot. Ideas. Capitalized. Sometimes italicized. To people saying this, the iPhone itself is The Idea.
Not some internal programming BS that parses numbers. Not making a scrollbar disappear when not in use. Not beveled edges. None of the things that Apple has sued over these past few years.
No. There's the iPhone as a whole. The Idea that Apple thought of first, and all companies pathetically strive for by making other phones that are similar to the iPhone.
These iPhone like phones that came out before the iPhone were NOTHING like the iPhone. How could you mix up the two? Such as...
This...
Is absolutely nothing like this...
But this...
...is a cheap ripoff. A stolen product, if you will.
Jesus. Can't you people think objectively?
Exactly, this is a fact some do not understand. Apple has let their patents secure their holding, and thus has become less innovative as they have less competition to concern them. This is a very complicated matter, and I'm as much of an Apple fan as anyone (heck, look at my profile!), however defending Apple on this is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. It benefits no one.
Exactly... Apple would patent the aura around their products if they could. Its obnoxious!
slide to unlock, grid of icons, and some of the patents that judges have invalidated are BS
they have come up with good patents just not all of them are
Neither did Apple, or Fingerworks.
Anyway, 3 pages and barely 2 or 3 people understood what the Google lawyer is saying : Apple should cooperate better by licensing their patents out for the good of the consumers. That way, everyone wins. Apple gets paid for the use of its IP if it holds any, Google and Microsoft get to use it, and heck, open up their own patents for Apple to use and everyone can make better and better products, building on the shoulders of giants.
The way it is now, Apple holds quite a few patents, many of which for things that are obvious or not even novel or innovative and they are suing tons of others over it. This results in costly court fights and Apple is getting their patents invalidated over prior art one by one while the non-infringement rulings are raining down on them.
They are losing patents and money, but delaying competitors, harming consumers. If they would license the patents, valid or not, most competitors would just pay up to avoid the court fights. They'd make money, keep their patents, and competitors would go on their merry way faster, bringing devices to market sooner.
So no one can create a smartphone with touch screen? Dude you are clueless. People buy the iphone because its WAY better thn android. I dont care if the look identical, and the iPhone was twice as much, i am buying the iPhone.
Then all Google has to do is show "prior art" proof and they win the infringement suit - so clearly it's not this simple.
We're talking about patents and accusations of copying. Not who buys what for whatever reason.
Also, reading comprehension. Learn it live it love it.
No not really. Why would you license the very features that you developed to make your product unique. Your concept is why they lost the PC war to Microsoft. The idiots at the wheel while Jobs was gone was careless with Apples technology and signed a poorly written license with Microsoft that allowed them to copy Mac OS. It nearly ran them out of business. They are not falling for that stupid move again.