17 ms·
Wil Shipley on Apple's Patent Enforcement
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- starkfist 17y agoDoes anyone else think this is less about the patents and more about a boardroom beef between Jobs and Eric Schmidt? My gut feeling is this is a private argument between two CEOs that has spiraled into the public eye.
- pavs 17y agoApple feels threatened by Google, as simple as that. Its hard to compete against a freemium model. It take years of research and development to make a solid OS (desktop or phone). Remember all the Phone interface before iphone? Yeah, they all pretty much sucked. Based on Apple iphone sales it is fair to say they have a winner and most people likes it. Google comes up with a free high quality, highly customizable, open source alternative to iphone OS that can turn any phone to a good phone. So all phone manufacturers have to do is concentrate on making a phone that looks like an iphone. I don't like that fact that Apple is being a patent troll, but at the same time I think manufacturers just copying iphone form factor is being a bit tacky. Who wants to bet that when ipad ships (and if it is a success) tablet manufacturers will start making tablets that copies the form factor of ipad? Edit: Relevant to what I wrote earlier - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8547230.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8547230.stm
- mbreese 17y agoApple is being a patent troll No they aren't... patent trolls don't produce anything or use the patents they sue over. Apple is clearly using their patent portfolio to produce products. You can disagree whether or not they should enforce their patents, but don't call them a troll. It weakens your argument.
- pavs 17y agoPatent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law. Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following: - Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent; - Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service; - Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; or - Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights. - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers --------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trolls#Etymology_and_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trolls#Etymology_and_def... I think in this case the fifth definition applies?
- Kadrith 17y ago> - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers Isn't this what the case will determine? If that is the situation then nobody really knows if there is infringement until the courts decide. They have also only filed against one company right now. I don't agree with the action, but I don't think they even remotely qualify as a patent troll.
- DougBTX 17y agoNone of those definitions obviously apply, why bother listing them? If you stretch the fifth definition to include Apple, then you would brand any company trying to enforce any patent against anybody a patent troll.
- elpuri 17y agoI'm not familiar with all the Android devices out there (I'm assuming that you're referring to Android device manufacturers here), but don't most of them have keyboards and trackballs vs. iPhone's slate design? Seems like two differnet form factors to me. The iPad's form factor is a tablet, so I'd say it's a safe bet to say that tablet manufacturers will keep on manufacturing tab... I mean copying iPads form factor ;)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- mbreese 17y agoI doubt that it is really that personal. Both companies wanted to move into the mobile space, but for completely different reasons. Google is focused on the internet and data, whereas Apple is focused on media. The boardroom split became inevitable when they both entered the space, but I doubt it was a personal beef.
- markkanof 17y agoInteresting as Apple clearly copied the look and feel of Wil's application Delicious Library of use in thier iBook store application. Granted I doubt Wil holds a patent on that interface, but it does seem a bit hypocritical.
- appathy 17y agoYou can't really patent an interface. An interface can be part of a patent, but not a patent by itself.
- sern 17y agoYou can register ("patent") a design.
- appathy 17y agoDesign patents are totally different than regular patents though. I have never heard of anyone getting sued because of a design patent.
- KT 17y agoNo, you get sued then because of trade dress.
- bitwize 17y agoTry putting your own beverage in bottles shaped like Coke's iconic curve bottle. Then you'll hear of it.
- mechanical_fish 17y agoThat's trademark law. Not the same thing as patent law, which in turn is not the same thing as copyright law.
- bitwize 17y ago
- jaxc 17y agoThis could be less to do with Apple asserting its rights and more to do with protection. Don't forget Nokia is if I remember correctly suing them for patent infringement with Apple counter suing so it could just be for protective purposes as well as legal maneuvering. I guess we'll see where things end up in a couple of years down the line. I doubt this would be cleared up quickly.
- yumraj 17y agoApple's patent's are software patents which we all as software people know should never exist. Nokia's patents are hardware patents, actual inventions related to wireless. In other words, a light bulb is genuinely patentable but some software code which does (for example only) if(switch=on)light=true shouldn't be patentable and much less enforceable.
- protomyth 17y agoSome of those patents Apple is using are hardware.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- halostatue 17y agoI think this is spot on. While I agree with everyone who wishes Apple weren't doing this, it feels like a manouvre intended to bolster their fight against Nokia. "Look! We believe in our patents so much, that we're going after other companies that infringe, too!" If it also has a deleterious effect on Android adoption, so much the better, right?
- bitwize 17y agoApple has always been vigorous about protecting its intellectual property. Its UI innovations are what keeps it ahead of the pack and not just another generic hardware manufacturer. The loss of Apple v. Microsoft only means that they cannot protect UI elements under the copyright regime. Which leaves patents and trying to invoke UI elements as trademark/trade dress.
- jonknee 17y agoWhen was the last time Apple offensively sued for IP?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- KT 17y agothey were getting there with the QuickTime code, when MS settled that time for $150M... back in 97 or 96.
- bitwize 17y agoThe last high-profile case was the aforementioned Apple v. Microsoft from 1988. They've issued plenty of C&D letters and takedown notices to individuals making Aqua-alike UI themes for other operating systems, as well. Not nearly the same threat display as an actual suit, but indicative of Apple being proactive about IP defense.
- nailer 17y agoIndeed. It always struck me as odd they didn't C & D Microsoft for the aqua start menu in Vista and XP.
- zefhous 17y agoGranted, I don't think these have been used offensively, but here are two patents that they benefit greatly from. Menu bar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_bar#Ease_of_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_bar#Ease_of_use iPod click wheel - http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-receives-patent-for-ipod-scroll-wheel/ http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-receive... I have no doubt that they would protect these if other companies infringed upon them. They offer significant usability advantages that Apple doesn't want others to have. What we're seeing now is a bit different. The market is moving so quickly now that Apple is trying to setup some boundaries that they don't want others to touch. I don't think they really had to do this with these examples. I'm not saying any of this is right, I'm just not all that surprised by it happening.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jimbokun 17y agoJobs told the world he would do this at the 2007 MacWorld keynote introducing the iPhone: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them." http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-s...
- swilliams 17y agoTrue, but my question is, why not go after HTC et al sooner? There were iPhone knockoffs within months of its announcement that could have been sued. And why sue HTC, and not Google or Motorola or Palm?
- zefhous 17y agoMaybe they want to scare hardware makers out of using Android.
- frederickcook 17y ago"True, but my question is, why not go after HTC et al sooner?" Nobody sues if they can avoid it. Lawsuits are extremely expensive, and companies will exhaust all other options first. The lawsuit means Apple demanded more than HTC was willing to pay, and decided they would fair better in court. Also, "iPhone knockoffs" doesn't necessarily mean patent infringements. Without doing in-depth research into the specific claims infringed, you can't say for sure whether any infringement took place. Patents and patent law are incredibly complicated. There is no simple answer to _why_.
- andreyf 17y agoMicroeconomics 101: Apple is in the mobile device business. Apple makes money by selling high-end mobile devices. Google Android is an move towards commoditizing mobile devices, as they are a compliment to Google's business [1]. The point of this is simply to increase the costs of making mobile devices. 1. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
- zppx 17y agoAs far as I know Introductory Microeconomics is much more than that... not intending to disrespect to Joel, but my father, being a formed economist with a master degree, laugh reading this some years ago. Watching two courses on Introductory Economics and trying to analyze a [fairly complex] situation with a great number of players is the same thing as passing as a analyst after watching a course on basic calculus.
- d4nt 17y agoWhat troubles me about this whole thing is, Apple doesn't NEED to do this. They still have great products, there are still many geniuses who would love to work there, they still have an insanely valuable brand. This sort of thing should be a last resort.
- dustingetz 17y agocourse they don't need to, but if they can hurt HTC, isn't that good strategy?
- andrew1 17y ago"Who will want a pale imitation when they could have the original?" I'd imagine it's the people who want a cheaper option that does most of the things an iPhone does and don't mind the lack of polish.
- stanleydrew 17y agoAnd the people who think the pale imitation's lack of software restrictions is far more important than any amount of polish.
- andrew1 17y agoAs an Android user I wouldn't disagree with you; I was just trying to present an example which the article's author wouldn't feel the need to argue about (software restrictions is a holy war topic, price probably isn't :) ).
- julianz 17y agoOr the people who want an option that does more and would rather cut their own feet off than use iTunes. Surely there's more than just me.
- nkassis 17y agoI believe the targeting of HTC might also be due to their modified android version with almost exact copies of the gesture from the iPhone (pinch to zoom in browser). But frankly, that stuff falls in the obvious category to me. And Apple claims to being a great company with awesome originality does feel like re-visioning history.
- abecedarius 17y agoPinch-to-zoom predates the iPhone. (That doesn't mean you're wrong.)
- dustingetz 17y agoum, a CEO has an obligation to act in the financial best interests of his shareholders. software patents might suck, but them's the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- glhaynes 17y agoIndeed. It seems to me that using the term "evil" (at least in instances where there's no human harm being done... Bhopal disaster and such aside) about a corporation is unlikely to lead us to clear thinking. Corporations are artificial entities that are set up with the goal of maximizing shareholder value. The corporations we're talking about exist inside democratic governance and regulatory systems. It seems to me that things would be likely to work best when we all think of corporations as what they are: machines to make a profit, and exercised our powers as voters (and as customers) appropriately. Now, of course, a particular corporation's behavior may make one more or less likely to want to purchase their products (in other words, their public "persona" is part of their marketing), but to be outraged about legal maneuvers doesn't make much sense to me. Don't buy their products and/or work to change the laws, but let's not be angry at tigers for chasing sweet little antelopes. It's what they do. I say this as someone who's been outraged before over Microsoft's anti-competitive maneuvers. I think that was probably stupid of me. They were doing just what they should have been doing if that's what they thought would maximize their profitability. Doesn't mean I like their products. But to call them evil was a mistake that I regret.
- pavel_lishin 17y ago> let's not be angry at tigers for chasing sweet little antelopes. It's a bit of a different scenario when the antelope is yours.
- donaq 17y agoWhy would we stop purchasing their products if we weren't outraged or in any way angry? And I think there is human harm done, albeit possibly second degree or third degree, if progress and innovation are retarded as a result of their actions. I think there is some justification in labeling Apple's actions "evil".
- dustingetz 17y ago"If Apple becomes a company that uses its might to quash competition instead of using its brains, it's going to find the brainiest people will slowly stop working there. You know this, you watched it happen at Microsoft. Enforcing patents isn't a good long-term play: it's the beginning of the end of the creative Apple we both love." theorizing out my ass without thinking much about it here: does anyone else feel like this is the long term lifecycle of every successful company? innovate, scale, stop innovating but keep executing what you know, scale, become too clumsy to innovate, die. But you made a heck of a lot of money along the way.
- blubb 17y agoYep. I think so. When you get big enough not to care, you inevitably stop caring. At some point, you become evil, and the smartest guys usually don't want to work for the evil company. That being said, I this is a good thing - other companies may be forced to out-innovate Apple and pay as much attention to detail as they do, and maybe these companies will attract all the talent they need to make it happen.
- calebgilbert 17y agoAs someone who was using macs even when there was a death watch on the entire company 1997-1999'ish I find all this wringing over patent fights to be silly. For better or worse, it's what companies do in this day and age. It's also hard for me to imagine that Steve Jobs is going to let someone do what Bill Gates did with windows in the mid 1980's (e.g., steal Apple's dominant market position by basically copying Apple's stuff and then selling it for a lower price) again without a fight.
- bad_user 17y agoYeah, everybody knows that Apple invented PCs, OSes, GUI interfaces, word processors and everything else. Microsoft would've never succeeded without copying stuff ... contrary to other people's beliefs, the backing of IBM didn't help one bit.
- olsonjeffery 17y agoAre you kidding me? Every time I hear someone complain about how Apple was wronged by Microsoft in the 1980s, I can't help but roll my eyes. Three words: Xerox-Fucking-PARC.
- protomyth 17y agoXerox made a business decision and was paid by Apple. Now, we can debate if Xerox's management made the correct call, but you can't say Apple "ripped them off". It is interesting comparing the situation with Microsoft since most of the problem came from badly written (from Apple's perspective) contracts.
- adamilardi 17y agoI think the issue is with the government issuing patents like these in the first place. Multitouch...are you kidding. I can see a patent on the technology behind multitouch so you can't open the iphone and steal it. Unlock by dragging an icon. rediculous. I am going to patent the form submit button. "an action by which a user submits information to a back-end server" Then I will sue everyone. Done!
- niallsmart 17y agoGreat artists sue?
- dustingetz 17y agosure they do. http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/joe-satriani-speaks-about-coldplay-lawsuit-185914 http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/joe-satriani-speaks-a...
- metatronscube 17y agoThis is one of the more childish rants. Apple is a company working in a capitalistic government, Its no different to any other company out there. Defending patents isn't unusual...especially if they have a case (which I feel they do). I don't agree necessarily with it because it stifles creativity and to some respect stops others from trying new things (or makes them too scared to try something else based on some current technology), but its the same with every other industry, HTC just have to payup or innovate. If they cant do either then they were taking a chance and it didn't pay off.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- marze 17y agoThis is a sign that the Apple vs. Microsoft battle is over. Previously, Apple and Google felt the need to cooperate against Microsoft. Apple believes now they have won.
- awa 17y agoI think its because Apple's main sources of revenue (handheld devices like iPod, iPhone...) are no longer conflicting with Microsoft's. Windows and Office are still huge revenue generator for MS and dominate their market.
- wrinklz 17y agoThe patent system is broke. Patents are handed out willy-nilly and only later validated through expensive legal litigation. Somehow the work needs to be done up front, to provide transparency and reduce litigation. Here's an idea. A tax on any product or service which is covered under a patent. The tax would be placed in government trust. If a patent is successfully invalidated by later litigation, then the court could award the successful litigant all or some portion of the collected taxes. When the patent expires, the collected taxes is transferred to the Patent Office. The intention is to increase funding for patent deliberation up front, and to create incentive for awarding enforceable patents.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- char 17y agoThere is something very wrong with the fact that I can only get the 'best' technologies on my phone if I use an Apple product. I really should have the choice between several phones with similar technologies, and each of their respective companies should be spending their time competing to create the next best technology so that everyone can have even better phones in the near future. But no, my only choice is Apple, because they want to 'protect' their patents. In reality, all they are doing is impeding the natural progress of innovation.