4 ms·

It does feel that Apple is reaping the whirlwind here. For a long time the major players have all held loaded guns pointed at each other's heads, with nobody w

It does feel that Apple is reaping the whirlwind here. For a long time the major players have all held loaded guns pointed at each other's heads, with nobody willing to fire a shot because they knew it would be more trouble than it was worth. And then Apple decided to take the first shot. The big question now, is whether the politicians will let this drag out, costing everyone a fortune, or step in and call an end to it by changing the patent system.

fleitz 15y ago
I think German politicians have bigger issues to worry about right now than a patent dispute between Apple and Motorola, something about Greece, Italy, and Spain. This court case is just a proxy war fought by Motorola as a client company of Google.
- pyre 15y ago
  So... Motorola was only fighting this on Google's behalf (prior to the purchase)? They were fighting this because it was in their own best interests. Just because their interests align with Google's doesn't make it a 'proxy war.'
  - fleitz 15y ago
    It's usually in the proxies interest to fight the war anyway. Vietnam was a proxy war for the US even though Vietnam was fighting it long before the US got involved. Google gets to fuck with Apple and if they lose they just roll up the company with out exposing the real profits to judgement. Moto bears the risk, Google reaps the rewards, classic proxy war. Either way I don't think German politicians are ready to intervene.
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
The politicians don't need to do anything, at least not in response to this specifically. If it's as bad as you say (and it's not, this is one ruling in one case and not a final one) then the companies will simply stop and put down their guns. They're not run by stupid people, when the cost of legal actions and settlements outweighs the possible benefits, they'll revert to the previous position - only the most outrageous violations will be followed up. This specific situation - the recent upsurge in actions (but NOT the more general issues with patent) is something that the market can sort out. The real problem with patents isn't multibillion dollar companies slugging it out, they've got the legal muscle and licensing budgets to be OK, it's with the small players who can't or won't develop products out of fear that they're going to violate some patent they're not even aware of owned by some multi-billion dollar organisation who'll squash them without thinking.
- stanleydrew 15y ago
  "The market" will only sort this out properly if it is efficient. There's too much uncertainty for that to be the case. Put another way, how is a company supposed to come up with an accurate expected value of suing/defending? There are so many unknown factors that have significant impact on the outcome. Eventually, once a lot of those unknowns become accurately estimable, then yes the market can solve these problems. But there's a giant cost associated with waiting around for that.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    How is that more uncertain than anything in business? How many will my product sell? How fast? What's going to happen to materials prices? What are my competitors going to do? By that logic the market couldn't work for 98% of products. Legal action I'd suggest is certainly no harder to predict than that and probably easier.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    Patents are anti-freemarket - they are restrictions on what one can actually do to their own property. They are government granted monopolies, that's about as anti-freemarket as you can get.
ajross 15y ago
I'm enjoying the schadenfreude too, but no: I think that's the wrong way to look at this. That Apple "shot first" doesn't make Motorola's suit any less bogus. If anything we're closer to a sane resolution now just because of the court mess in Europe. The goal here has to be achieving a sane and stable status quo for "obvious" IP law in consumer hardware; not punishing Apple for being jerks about things and upsetting the previous status quo.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  Oh, I don't like this outcome. I'd like to get rid of software patents entirely, and limit the time period and scope of hardware patents a lot more.
sjs 15y ago
My guess is that many politicians just see this as the system working.
ellyagg 15y ago
What on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. Nokia was able to successfully extort money from Apple. Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. If people want the system to change, they need to lobby for it, but please remember your history. Apple didn't start this and everyone is doing it. Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with.
- stanleydrew 15y ago
  Do you have a reference for that? I can't remember who was first anymore but I did seem to think it was Apple.
  - ellyagg 15y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889
- ceol 15y ago
  >Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. This implies that Apple was some naive child entering the Big Bad World of Business. I doubt they were unaware of how to play the game.
- Tuna-Fish 15y ago
  >What on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. That's not exactly how it happened -- every other major player pays Nokia licensing fees. Apple refused to purchase a license on the terms Nokia offered (mostly, Nokia wanted a cross-licensing agreement for Apple UI patents. Nokia actually cares about patents, and tries to not infringe on them.), so Nokia sued them to force it.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
    " Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with." At this level - All the major players try and license on FRAND terms first and foremost - limits your risk, and keeps your legal bills down - but Nokia was asking for more than Apple was willing to play - so they go to court. All the players are looking at this from a Game Theoretic position, and, at the end of the day, Patent holders _have_ to send some of their negotiations to court, if only to make it clear their FRAND values would be held up. Apple is somewhat unique, in that they aren't as keen on getting license value for their patents as their competitors are - and, FRAND values on a design patent is a lot more "mushy" than a radio chip function.
funkah 15y ago
Well, would you rather see companies in this market stop doing this pointless crap, or see Apple suffer? The answer to this question will dictate whether you think this turn of events is a good thing or not.

fleitz 15y ago

I think German politicians have bigger issues to worry about right now than a patent dispute between Apple and Motorola, something about Greece, Italy, and Spain. This court case is just a proxy war fought by Motorola as a client company of Google.

pyre 15y ago
So... Motorola was only fighting this on Google's behalf (prior to the purchase)? They were fighting this because it was in their own best interests. Just because their interests align with Google's doesn't make it a 'proxy war.'
- fleitz 15y ago
  It's usually in the proxies interest to fight the war anyway. Vietnam was a proxy war for the US even though Vietnam was fighting it long before the US got involved. Google gets to fuck with Apple and if they lose they just roll up the company with out exposing the real profits to judgement. Moto bears the risk, Google reaps the rewards, classic proxy war. Either way I don't think German politicians are ready to intervene.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

The politicians don't need to do anything, at least not in response to this specifically. If it's as bad as you say (and it's not, this is one ruling in one case and not a final one) then the companies will simply stop and put down their guns. They're not run by stupid people, when the cost of legal actions and settlements outweighs the possible benefits, they'll revert to the previous position - only the most outrageous violations will be followed up. This specific situation - the recent upsurge in actions (but NOT the more general issues with patent) is something that the market can sort out. The real problem with patents isn't multibillion dollar companies slugging it out, they've got the legal muscle and licensing budgets to be OK, it's with the small players who can't or won't develop products out of fear that they're going to violate some patent they're not even aware of owned by some multi-billion dollar organisation who'll squash them without thinking.

stanleydrew 15y ago
"The market" will only sort this out properly if it is efficient. There's too much uncertainty for that to be the case. Put another way, how is a company supposed to come up with an accurate expected value of suing/defending? There are so many unknown factors that have significant impact on the outcome. Eventually, once a lot of those unknowns become accurately estimable, then yes the market can solve these problems. But there's a giant cost associated with waiting around for that.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  How is that more uncertain than anything in business? How many will my product sell? How fast? What's going to happen to materials prices? What are my competitors going to do? By that logic the market couldn't work for 98% of products. Legal action I'd suggest is certainly no harder to predict than that and probably easier.
- dantheman 15y ago
  Patents are anti-freemarket - they are restrictions on what one can actually do to their own property. They are government granted monopolies, that's about as anti-freemarket as you can get.

ajross 15y ago

I'm enjoying the schadenfreude too, but no: I think that's the wrong way to look at this. That Apple "shot first" doesn't make Motorola's suit any less bogus. If anything we're closer to a sane resolution now just because of the court mess in Europe. The goal here has to be achieving a sane and stable status quo for "obvious" IP law in consumer hardware; not punishing Apple for being jerks about things and upsetting the previous status quo.

AndrewDucker 15y ago
Oh, I don't like this outcome. I'd like to get rid of software patents entirely, and limit the time period and scope of hardware patents a lot more.

sjs 15y ago

My guess is that many politicians just see this as the system working.

ellyagg 15y ago

What on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. Nokia was able to successfully extort money from Apple. Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. If people want the system to change, they need to lobby for it, but please remember your history. Apple didn't start this and everyone is doing it. Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with.

stanleydrew 15y ago
Do you have a reference for that? I can't remember who was first anymore but I did seem to think it was Apple.
- ellyagg 15y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889
ceol 15y ago
>Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. This implies that Apple was some naive child entering the Big Bad World of Business. I doubt they were unaware of how to play the game.
Tuna-Fish 15y ago
>What on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. That's not exactly how it happened -- every other major player pays Nokia licensing fees. Apple refused to purchase a license on the terms Nokia offered (mostly, Nokia wanted a cross-licensing agreement for Apple UI patents. Nokia actually cares about patents, and tries to not infringe on them.), so Nokia sued them to force it.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  " Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with." At this level - All the major players try and license on FRAND terms first and foremost - limits your risk, and keeps your legal bills down - but Nokia was asking for more than Apple was willing to play - so they go to court. All the players are looking at this from a Game Theoretic position, and, at the end of the day, Patent holders _have_ to send some of their negotiations to court, if only to make it clear their FRAND values would be held up. Apple is somewhat unique, in that they aren't as keen on getting license value for their patents as their competitors are - and, FRAND values on a design patent is a lot more "mushy" than a radio chip function.

funkah 15y ago

Well, would you rather see companies in this market stop doing this pointless crap, or see Apple suffer? The answer to this question will dictate whether you think this turn of events is a good thing or not.