4 ms·

I could see why Microsoft would do something like this, but why Apple? Does anyone know?

by pg 14y ago

3am 14y ago
I don't know any better than you, but it looks a lot like it's intended to harass Google (edit: without dragging down Apple's brand)
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  That was my first thought as well, but Rockstar is not just going after Google but carpet-bombing the entire technology world (phones, routers, etc - anything). So why would Apple be on board with that?
  - 3am 14y ago
    Collateral damage?
buster 14y ago
Quite easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoAF0Jvhqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoAF0Jvhqc http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/steve-jobs-larry-page/ http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/steve-jobs-larry-page/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57409917-37/steve-jobs-really-was-mad-about-android-says-biographer/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57409917-37/steve-jobs-rea... etc etc etc
- pg 14y ago
  Oh, was it Steve's anger about Android copying iOS? I could see that sort of bitterness making a company behave in a way that would otherwise be out of character. Is that the consensus about why Apple did this? If it is, could Apple undo the damage now that it's in more moderate hands? Or have they effectively set off a giant, evil autonomous robot that can't be stopped?
  - buster 14y ago
    I think, it's not out of character per se, but Apple will be very threatened by the rise of Android. Android now leads the market (afaik), which was Apples position for years. Now, they only have two options in the current system: - change strategy - sue Obivously, a huge company like Apple won't just change its strategy. Just building the fancy products they do got them at this point but may not get them much further. To sue is (sadly) the only other way to hold off competition. What that change in strategy may be, i don't know. Maybe more openness and try to break out of the walled garden they build.. There is only little space left in the niche that Apple occupies (selling expensive tech products to people that can afford it), especially when there is so much competition in the whole market. Apple had a major advantage for years in the market with the iPod and iPhone and i will be really impressed if they can think of the next big thing(tm). If Apple can't come up with the next big product and just keeps going, they may only be able to sue to hold off competition. That's only talking about the mobile market of course. Edit: I'm hoping for months now that all major companies just sue each other into checkmate until it becomes obvious to the governments that the patent system has to change. Please Apple, MS, Google, etc. sue until you are not allowed to sell any products anymore! I very much look forward to it.
    - ryanmolden 14y ago
      I believe Android leads only in a pure device count kind of way. Apple leads (far and away) in terms of profit per device, and that is the interesting metric for all large corporations. Google's Android play has always seemed defensive to avoid getting locked out of search if usage patterns on mobile shifted to non-web based interactions. Google does NOT want Apple, Microsoft or anyone else stepping between them and their users, especially since they make money with ad targeting/serving. As for Apple selling luxury toys to the well heeled, I recall reading recently that tablet manufacturers have all but admitted they can't price compete with the iPad. If Apple starts lowering prices to move down market, with their impressive vertical integration, I think it would be a blood bath for people currently in those spaces. I suspect we will see moves like this before the year is out. Not a good time to be Dell, Asus, etc...
      - 14y ago
culturestate 14y ago
My knee-jerk response was "an escalation of Apple's holy war on Android," but perhaps this is the first phase in a deescalation. Tim Cook has said he prefers to settle rather than battle, and what better way to bring HTC and Samsung to the table than with the acquisition of a not-so-subtle guillotine forged from key LTE patents?
elemeno 14y ago
It wouldn't be too far fetched to imagine that it's simply because Apple knows that some of the patents involved are ones which cover areas they're working in and so by being part of the consortium that owns them they're covering themselves against potential problems in the future. Once you're part of consortium, you might as well be part of the group looking for potential infringers. It behoves you to protect your investment and it provides potential ways to protect yourself in the future by being able to force cross-licensing deals if it turns out that you're infringing on someone else's patent(s) - these are supposed to be fairly fundamental patents so there's a good chance that who ever is suing you is going to be infringing on one of them, or else licensing it already. This is a far better article about it - http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/all/1 http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/all/1
coderdude 14y ago
This seems more like an Apple move than a Microsoft move. It's a pretty common opinion nowadays that Apple is the worst in the bunch; beating the pants off any unethical stuff Microsoft might be up to -- or was up to even back in the day. I'd imagine Microsoft just needed to be on board so that they didn't get left out and screwed over by this down the line. I am completely mystified by how these companies get together and work with each other on things like this.
- eridius 14y ago
  Citation please. Your "common opinion" has never actually been backed up with any evidence that I've seen.
  - 1234the1234 14y ago
    Well there's HTC and Samsung for just patents and the basic old crush the competition in the court room that I can think off Psystar eMachines Microsoft But the "common opinion" is most definitely because of how they really opened the door to this being main stream practice with the Samsung lawsuit.
  - coderdude 14y ago
    You want a citation that proves it's a common opinion now? People express that opinion on here all the time. You're not going to find them in the Apple threads, obviously. Or do you want me to painstakingly back up this opinion with citations of how their closed ecosystem, strong arming (or outright disallowing) of their competition in the app store, and patent bullying is making them evil?
    - Steko 14y ago
      He wants you to justify your claim. Obviously you can't so I guess loud noises are in order.
      - coderdude 14y ago
        I don't owe him 30 minutes of my time. Simply because I don't choose to fulfill his request for information does not mean that I'm here to make "loud noises." If he was actually interested and not just challenging my point because he doesn't share my opinion then he could have done this... https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+apple+evil https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+apple+evil ...to get an idea of what I meant by common opinion. That "citation please" thing is a quick and easy way to try and derail anyone's argument who isn't willing to spend real time digging crap up. It's perfectly fine by me if this makes me "lose the argument."
Steko 14y ago
How is this really any different than all of these companies (and many others) investing in IV? or are those "investments" effectively just the licensing fees to the IV pool?
- fpgeek 14y ago
  My understanding is the most of IV's "investors" didn't buy or otherwise provide the patents that IV uses (which does suggest the payments are closer to licensing fees than true investments). With Rockstar, we have specific players (Apple, Ericsson, Microsoft, RIM, Sony) buying the patents and funding the troll in the first place.

I could see why Microsoft would do something like this, but why Apple? Does anyone know?

by pg 14y ago

I could see why Microsoft would do something like this, but why Apple? Does anyone know?

3am 14y ago

I don't know any better than you, but it looks a lot like it's intended to harass Google (edit: without dragging down Apple's brand)

SkyMarshal 14y ago
That was my first thought as well, but Rockstar is not just going after Google but carpet-bombing the entire technology world (phones, routers, etc - anything). So why would Apple be on board with that?
- 3am 14y ago
  Collateral damage?

buster 14y ago

Quite easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoAF0Jvhqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoAF0Jvhqc http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/steve-jobs-larry-page/ http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/steve-jobs-larry-page/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57409917-37/steve-jobs-really-was-mad-about-android-says-biographer/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57409917-37/steve-jobs-rea... etc etc etc

pg 14y ago
Oh, was it Steve's anger about Android copying iOS? I could see that sort of bitterness making a company behave in a way that would otherwise be out of character. Is that the consensus about why Apple did this? If it is, could Apple undo the damage now that it's in more moderate hands? Or have they effectively set off a giant, evil autonomous robot that can't be stopped?
- buster 14y ago
  I think, it's not out of character per se, but Apple will be very threatened by the rise of Android. Android now leads the market (afaik), which was Apples position for years. Now, they only have two options in the current system: - change strategy - sue Obivously, a huge company like Apple won't just change its strategy. Just building the fancy products they do got them at this point but may not get them much further. To sue is (sadly) the only other way to hold off competition. What that change in strategy may be, i don't know. Maybe more openness and try to break out of the walled garden they build.. There is only little space left in the niche that Apple occupies (selling expensive tech products to people that can afford it), especially when there is so much competition in the whole market. Apple had a major advantage for years in the market with the iPod and iPhone and i will be really impressed if they can think of the next big thing(tm). If Apple can't come up with the next big product and just keeps going, they may only be able to sue to hold off competition. That's only talking about the mobile market of course. Edit: I'm hoping for months now that all major companies just sue each other into checkmate until it becomes obvious to the governments that the patent system has to change. Please Apple, MS, Google, etc. sue until you are not allowed to sell any products anymore! I very much look forward to it.
  - ryanmolden 14y ago
    I believe Android leads only in a pure device count kind of way. Apple leads (far and away) in terms of profit per device, and that is the interesting metric for all large corporations. Google's Android play has always seemed defensive to avoid getting locked out of search if usage patterns on mobile shifted to non-web based interactions. Google does NOT want Apple, Microsoft or anyone else stepping between them and their users, especially since they make money with ad targeting/serving. As for Apple selling luxury toys to the well heeled, I recall reading recently that tablet manufacturers have all but admitted they can't price compete with the iPad. If Apple starts lowering prices to move down market, with their impressive vertical integration, I think it would be a blood bath for people currently in those spaces. I suspect we will see moves like this before the year is out. Not a good time to be Dell, Asus, etc...
    - 14y ago

culturestate 14y ago

My knee-jerk response was "an escalation of Apple's holy war on Android," but perhaps this is the first phase in a deescalation. Tim Cook has said he prefers to settle rather than battle, and what better way to bring HTC and Samsung to the table than with the acquisition of a not-so-subtle guillotine forged from key LTE patents?

elemeno 14y ago

It wouldn't be too far fetched to imagine that it's simply because Apple knows that some of the patents involved are ones which cover areas they're working in and so by being part of the consortium that owns them they're covering themselves against potential problems in the future. Once you're part of consortium, you might as well be part of the group looking for potential infringers. It behoves you to protect your investment and it provides potential ways to protect yourself in the future by being able to force cross-licensing deals if it turns out that you're infringing on someone else's patent(s) - these are supposed to be fairly fundamental patents so there's a good chance that who ever is suing you is going to be infringing on one of them, or else licensing it already. This is a far better article about it - http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/all/1 http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/all/1

coderdude 14y ago

This seems more like an Apple move than a Microsoft move. It's a pretty common opinion nowadays that Apple is the worst in the bunch; beating the pants off any unethical stuff Microsoft might be up to -- or was up to even back in the day. I'd imagine Microsoft just needed to be on board so that they didn't get left out and screwed over by this down the line. I am completely mystified by how these companies get together and work with each other on things like this.

eridius 14y ago
Citation please. Your "common opinion" has never actually been backed up with any evidence that I've seen.
- 1234the1234 14y ago
  Well there's HTC and Samsung for just patents and the basic old crush the competition in the court room that I can think off Psystar eMachines Microsoft But the "common opinion" is most definitely because of how they really opened the door to this being main stream practice with the Samsung lawsuit.
- coderdude 14y ago
  You want a citation that proves it's a common opinion now? People express that opinion on here all the time. You're not going to find them in the Apple threads, obviously. Or do you want me to painstakingly back up this opinion with citations of how their closed ecosystem, strong arming (or outright disallowing) of their competition in the app store, and patent bullying is making them evil?
  - Steko 14y ago
    He wants you to justify your claim. Obviously you can't so I guess loud noises are in order.
    - coderdude 14y ago
      I don't owe him 30 minutes of my time. Simply because I don't choose to fulfill his request for information does not mean that I'm here to make "loud noises." If he was actually interested and not just challenging my point because he doesn't share my opinion then he could have done this... https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+apple+evil https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+apple+evil ...to get an idea of what I meant by common opinion. That "citation please" thing is a quick and easy way to try and derail anyone's argument who isn't willing to spend real time digging crap up. It's perfectly fine by me if this makes me "lose the argument."

Steko 14y ago

How is this really any different than all of these companies (and many others) investing in IV? or are those "investments" effectively just the licensing fees to the IV pool?

fpgeek 14y ago
My understanding is the most of IV's "investors" didn't buy or otherwise provide the patents that IV uses (which does suggest the payments are closer to licensing fees than true investments). With Rockstar, we have specific players (Apple, Ericsson, Microsoft, RIM, Sony) buying the patents and funding the troll in the first place.