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

U.S. Antitrust Regulators Concerned Over Apple's Interest in Nortel Patents

mdriftmeyer said:
Isn't it great you have to explain the definition of patents, on a weekly basis?
Click to expand...

A lot of people on this forum don't understand that business is a dog-eat-dog world. People say that Apple fans drink the "Kool-Aid." Yet, people on this forum seem to be drinking another type of "Kool-Aid"-that of Google's when they buy into their whole facade of "don't be evil." Google doesn't sue over patents and will never sue over patents because they don't care about them. Google is an advertising company. The more people using Google search, the better. In the grand scheme of things, the money lost on "patent infringements" is chump change to Google.

Oh, while we're at it, if Google is into "sharing," why don't they release their search algorithm? They're the ones who accused Microsoft of copying Google search results with Bing.
 
econgeek said:
PS- Your sig "Flash will be around a lot longer than Steve Jobs will" is quite offensive, and given that this is MacRumors, makes me wonder if you're trolling? IF not, put up an argument and some facts next time.
Click to expand...

That is just as offensive as your sig.
"All that hype for an MP3 player? Break-thru digital device? The Reality Distiortion Field™ is starting to warp Steve's mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off. 5297/20"

Calling pot kettle black? When you are doing the same thing you accuse someone else of.
 
zachkolk said:
Why do Antitrust Regulators even exist? If a company wants to make more profits by buying up some patents then let them do it.
Click to expand...

Really? This statement makes me question your naivety of capitalism.

Consider the situation where Apple (or another large patent-holding company) were allowed to hold these patents amongst other key patents and refused to licence them, effectively preventing other companies from making a set of products, e.g. smartphones. All other competition would fold and Apple would be the only company able to make smartphones. They then bump up the price to $5000 dollars each and the world which has come to rely on smartphones have to shell this out or live without the technology. Nobody can consider this to be a beneficial scenario?

Regards to them now looking into Apple and not Google, it did say that they received adequate answers from Google, so maybe Google agreed to licence the important technologies should they get them. They're probably just looking for Apple to agree to a similar condition, and not just that they're out to get Apple. Just sayin'.
 
Make sure your patents aren't too innovative and far-reaching, and that you don't have a lot of them. Otherwise you'll have to share. Allow others to infringe on them from time to time. Don't litigate because it means you're abusing your position.
 
So basically the story can read... Apple will be forced to give up a few trivial patents or make a few insignificant agreements before being allowed to acquire these patents.
 
why doesn't the interested parties (Apple, Google, RIM) form a company to buy the portfolio. If the portfolio is worth around $900M, each company could pitch in say $500M, giving Nortel well above it estimated worth (satisfying any concerns about competitive bidding).


This would also allow the interest parties access to patents (and/or control to license them out) and move forward with their goals without being hindered and distracted by patent lawsuits.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

econgeek said:
UTclassof89 said:
I'm guessing you're surfing MacRumors instead of paying attention in History Class....
Click to expand...

History is often written by the winners, and in politics, the "winners" are often scumbags who pass evil laws and get away with it because the people are distracted by some other issue: EG: PATRIOT Act.

The LAW of the land is the Constitution, and while patents are enshrined in the Constitution, there is no provision in the enumerated powers for the existence of Anti-Trust laws.

Thus if you study the law, and particularly history as it pertains to the creation of the constitution and the powers that it grants the government, you see that the founding fathers were pretty clear on the matter.

There's no point in smugly implying your opponent hasn't studied history, when you don't provide any reason or argument for your side. If your position is more defensible than his, why not argue the position, rather than to the person?

PS- Your sig "Flash will be around a lot longer than Steve Jobs will" is quite offensive, and given that this is MacRumors, makes me wonder if you're trolling? IF not, put up an argument and some facts next time.
Click to expand...

Jeeze dude go back to bed and try waking up on the other side. His post wasn't that offensive was it? It's obvious you were looking for a fight with your initial post.

As for the topic. I think the first post was on point. I'd rather trust my digital future to apple than google, MS or RIM.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

*LTD* said:
Rodimus Prime said:
Difference is if just Apple controls them you have Apple long LONG history of not licencing out their IP for others to use. Apple has a history of blocking others.

Google case is more they have a history of letting other use their IP. So if lets say Google owns them it does not effect Apple inventing stuff. It just means Apple competitors can use the same IP as well.

If Apple owns them only Apple will use them and no one else will be allowed. This hurts innovations in the long run.
Now the first method screws Apple because Apple does not know how to play fair.
Click to expand...

So Apple shouldn't get them because they'll end up using legally available mechanisms to protect them? Because they might exercise their rights?

Is this the argument?

OF COURSE Apple will not simply allow others to use them like a free-for-all. Others will have to pay licensing fees, IF Apple licenses them out at all. But that's their prerogative. What sort of precedent will that set, though? If some governing body determines based on this or that arbitrary set of conditions that your patents just so happen to be "important" ones, then you lose the very freedom otherwise granted to you by law to defend them?

How is this supposed to work?

Doesn't distributing these patents or somehow arbitrarily rendering them public domain *also* stifle innovation? If Apple held all these lovely patents then wouldn't others take some initiative and attempt to come up with better alternatives? But I fear this might be asking too much of the competition . . .

Seems this also has the by-product of giving the competition a helping hand.
Click to expand...

It seems thy these patents are considered too important for the industry as a whole. The regulators want to make sure that whoever ends up with them will allow the industry to license the tech. So apparently the patents are regarded as something that should be a standard.

I don't see why the regulators are messing about with this but at least the tech will be available to everyone if apple can't have it for themselves.
 
2 Replies said:
IMO, patents should not be transferable.
If a company owns rights to a patent, and it cannot make it on it's own then said IP should become public domain immediately.

Or in the VERY LEAST, the selling of patents shouldn't be allowed.
(So okay... if you buy the entire company, you get the patent with it's existing expiry. But no company should be able to toss up a bunch of patents then sell them.)



You have a pretty obvious logical fallacy there.

(just saying)
Click to expand...

For some companies, the only value is the patents they hold. Let's say, for example, you are a major shareholder of a company that has gone bankrupt. One of the only means of you recovering any of your investment would be for that company to liquidate its assets, patents being among them.
 
chrono1081 said:
Agreed. I haven't looked too much into those ones but from the brief amount I read I do agree it seemed weak.
Click to expand...

So it is more than just samgsung that Apple is suing. They are still I believe lock in a law suit with HTC and Nokia.
Add that to there long history of not licensing out patents is a pretty good reason to deny them the right to this block.
 
myjellyass said:
Really? This statement makes me question your naivety of capitalism.

Consider the situation where Apple (or another large patent-holding company) were allowed to hold these patents amongst other key patents and refused to licence them, effectively preventing other companies from making a set of products, e.g. smartphones. All other competition would fold and Apple would be the only company able to make smartphones. They then bump up the price to $5000 dollars each and the world which has come to rely on smartphones have to shell this out or live without the technology. Nobody can consider this to be a beneficial scenario?

Regards to them now looking into Apple and not Google, it did say that they received adequate answers from Google, so maybe Google agreed to licence the important technologies should they get them. They're probably just looking for Apple to agree to a similar condition, and not just that they're out to get Apple. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Why should Apple or Google be required to license the patents?

Either it's a valid patent, or it's an invalid patent. Property includes both the right to sell, and the right to refuse to sell.

We are reaching an absurd situation where you can "own" something and yet have a regulator have veto power over your ability to sell it or forcing you to license it.

Instead of diluting property rights to the point of meaninglessness, patents should be granted more carefully. We current have a situation where one government body grants property, and then another reserves the indefinite and indeterminate right to intervene and render that property worthless at it's whim.
 
econgeek said:
...Thus if you study the law, and particularly history as it pertains to the creation of the constitution and the powers that it grants the government, you see that the founding fathers were pretty clear on the matter.

There's no point in smugly implying your opponent hasn't studied history, when you don't provide any reason or argument for your side. If your position is more defensible than his, why not argue the position, rather than to the person?

PS- Your sig "Flash will be around a lot longer than Steve Jobs will" is quite offensive, and given that this is MacRumors, makes me wonder if you're trolling? IF not, put up an argument and some facts next time.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I had to spell it out when I provided a link to a detailed article, but here you go:

The comment I replied to naively asserted (I'm paraphrasing) "companies will do the right thing because the invisible hand of the market makes them do so."

Neither that comment nor my reply has anything to do with constitutional law. My "study history" comment attempted to convey how naive --even delusional-- it is to believe companies 'do the right thing because they cannot thrive if they are bad'. History is rife with examples, from the East India Trading Company, to Standard Oil, to BP, Walmart, and Halliburton. These are large companies that infamously did not do the right thing when it was more profitable not to.

Your assertion that my signature means I'm "trolling" indicates you don't know what "trolling" means (it was chosen long ago and has nothing to do with this thread--oh, and it's 100% true regardless of how you feel about Flash. Technology doesn't die; people do)
 
Rodimus Prime said:
So it is more than just samgsung that Apple is suing. They are still I believe lock in a law suit with HTC and Nokia.
Add that to there long history of not licensing out patents is a pretty good reason to deny them the right to this block.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. You seem very confident that Apple shouldn't be able to acquire these patents based on the idea that they might not license them out to others. In your view, should Apple be restricted from filing new original patents for the same reason? If not, what's the difference?

If you're answer to that is market value, I remind you that the patent portfolio may sell for nearly a billion dollars. The market value of those patents will be paid to the original owner.

The group who should be most angry with any anti-trust investigation on the bidders is Nortel. If the government forces licensing the Nortel portfolio becomes less valuable. Nortel will simply make less money on them.
 
Hastings101 said:
Most of Apple's "innovation" is just following what those before it did and improving on it. That's pretty much what the whole industry is - taking what does well before you (or sometimes not so well) and making it better.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

innovate
verb [ intrans. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
 
myjellyass said:
Consider the situation where Apple (or another large patent-holding company) were allowed to hold these patents amongst other key patents and refused to licence them, effectively preventing other companies from making a set of products, e.g. smartphones. All other competition would fold and Apple would be the only company able to make smartphones. They then bump up the price to $5000 dollars each and the world which has come to rely on smartphones have to shell this out or live without the technology. Nobody can consider this to be a beneficial scenario?
Click to expand...

And that's exactly where antitrust law should come into play—it is illegal to do as your scenario suggests—not before.

We are supposed to punish people/entities for wrongdoings that they have committed, not for wrongdoings that they may commit. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
 
rmwebs said:
I'd be more worried about Apple too. Google tend to be a little more open arms with this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

For now, it can all change when the growth isn't big enough for investors and/or with others leading the company. Patents last to long, 2 or 10 years from now this can still go wrong with either company.
 
Nobody's trying to make companies share their current patents, nor take away their patent rights.

At the same time, the public has a overarching common sense interest in making sure that any company that buys up patents critical to the entire telecommunication industry, will continue to license them for a reasonable fee instead of exercising the right to withhold them from everyone else.

That's why the anti-trust regulators are interested.

Imagine if Nokia exercised their rights and said, "Apple, we changed our minds. We don't just want GSM/WiFi license fees from you. We've decided to refuse to license our patents to you at all." Goodbye, iPhone.

tl;dr -- Courts have ruled that if the intent of buying a large number of patents is to halt any competition in that field, it is a violation of antitrust laws.

That's why Apple (and anyone else) must address concerns about their intentions.
 
Nortel owns patents that are deeply entrenched within existing communication standards.

The antitrust commission wants to ensure that whoever becomes the owner of some of these patents doesn't take them away from others. Be it Google, Apple or RIM.

Google has satisfied their concerns, Apple refuses to respond. The commission is applying the same rules to both, but Apple won't play.

There is no injustice here.

Why do Antitrust Regulators even exist? If a company wants to make more profits by buying up some patents then let them do it. If said company does something immoral/something the public doesn't like, then they wont buy their products & the company has to change. It's called capitalism. Start regulating something that needs regulating, like the borders.
Click to expand...

If Antitrust regulators hadn't kept an eye on Microsoft and applied sanctions against them, Apple wouldn't exist right now.
 
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