4 ms·

Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and sta

Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market. Are my products terrible? Obviously not! Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I saying that my products are terrible and can’t compete? No, I’m saying my products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors’ actual products. But obviously I’m going to be less successful competing against my own product and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy my ideas. This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own innovations. It’s fair to argue that the competition didn’t copy them. But if we accept the court’s ruling that the competing products are infringing on Apple’s patents, then Apple is not making “terrible” products that can’t compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.

dannyr 14y ago
It always depend on how significant the "innovation" is. Do you think "Slide To Unlock" or "Universal Search" is what makes the IPhone a great phone? I can't equate any of these patents to carbon fiber. It doesn't really bother me that these trivial patents were granted to Apple. It is how Apple is using it to basically take out the competition.
mrkurt 14y ago
This is more along the lines of you inventing and patenting carbon fiber, then winning an injunction against someone who built a frame made of spider silk and titanium on the grounds that you are the sole inventor of "lightweight, rigid bicycle frames". When you go to court with patents like the 4 Apple is leaning on, the perception of playing dirty because you're losing "fairly" is logical, and probably reasonably apt.
notatoad 14y ago
Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued. Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with this farce.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.
  - pm90 14y ago
    Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without being so paranoid
    - raganwald 14y ago
      I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.” I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.
      - runevault 14y ago
        I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.
        raganwald 14y ago
        I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor’s original designs and products. The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.
mrich 14y ago
Consider for a minute how much tech is in the iPhone that was not invented by Apple. They were standing on the shoulders of decades of telecommunications and computer science research, perfected an existing invention (there were touchscreen devices before) and patented the hell out of it. Should all other cellphone manufacturers suddenly be locked out of the industry? Shouldn't patents benefit society, instead of enabling one company to hold an entire industry hostage with dubious claims?
joe_the_user 14y ago
OK, I don't think gp's point maximizing Apple's gain but simply shaming Apple into better behavior. Sure, it's better for you if your competition isn't allowed to use any of your innovations. But why not show you are so good you don't need all the advantages you are legally entitled to?
thechut 14y ago
I think that some people need to stop their blind love of Apple products and take a step back and look at how unethically Apple is behaving in some of these cases. Just because you think your gadgets are sexy and cool doesn't mean Apple can do whatever it wants. Competition exists for a reason, I know that most people here are smart enough to recognize that.
jellicle 14y ago
Skilled developers defending software patents is shameful. You should know better.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  "Skilled developers" need to understand the system as it exists today or they will fail. Raganwald wasn't defending software patents; he was explaining the fallacious thinking in the parent's comment. Software patents are a horrible joke, but to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you!!!" won't result in a positive outcome for your company. As much as it makes my stomach turn, I'm forced to consider the ramifications of patent and IP (especially now that it's first to file instead of first to innovate) nearly every day.
Tichy 14y ago
It's obviously a ridiculous patent, so Apple can not possibly claim their competitors are piggy backing on their expensive research in this case. Also, let's ride with the carbon fibre example. Is it really desirable that the world will have to wait for 50+ years until carbon fibre bicycles can be made accessible to the mainstream? Let's not forget that it is the public, proxied by the government, who grants patents, so obviously they should only grant patents if it benefits the public. This is not the case with patent trolling, because it only stiffles innovation (basically you need an army of lawyers to do anything interesting) and drives up prices.

dannyr 14y ago

It always depend on how significant the "innovation" is. Do you think "Slide To Unlock" or "Universal Search" is what makes the IPhone a great phone? I can't equate any of these patents to carbon fiber. It doesn't really bother me that these trivial patents were granted to Apple. It is how Apple is using it to basically take out the competition.

mrkurt 14y ago

This is more along the lines of you inventing and patenting carbon fiber, then winning an injunction against someone who built a frame made of spider silk and titanium on the grounds that you are the sole inventor of "lightweight, rigid bicycle frames". When you go to court with patents like the 4 Apple is leaning on, the perception of playing dirty because you're losing "fairly" is logical, and probably reasonably apt.

notatoad 14y ago

Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued. Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with this farce.

raganwald 14y ago
Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.
- pm90 14y ago
  Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without being so paranoid
  - raganwald 14y ago
    I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.” I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.
    - runevault 14y ago
      I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.
      - raganwald 14y ago
        I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor’s original designs and products. The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.

mrich 14y ago

Consider for a minute how much tech is in the iPhone that was not invented by Apple. They were standing on the shoulders of decades of telecommunications and computer science research, perfected an existing invention (there were touchscreen devices before) and patented the hell out of it. Should all other cellphone manufacturers suddenly be locked out of the industry? Shouldn't patents benefit society, instead of enabling one company to hold an entire industry hostage with dubious claims?

joe_the_user 14y ago

OK, I don't think gp's point maximizing Apple's gain but simply shaming Apple into better behavior. Sure, it's better for you if your competition isn't allowed to use any of your innovations. But why not show you are so good you don't need all the advantages you are legally entitled to?

thechut 14y ago

I think that some people need to stop their blind love of Apple products and take a step back and look at how unethically Apple is behaving in some of these cases. Just because you think your gadgets are sexy and cool doesn't mean Apple can do whatever it wants. Competition exists for a reason, I know that most people here are smart enough to recognize that.

jellicle 14y ago

Skilled developers defending software patents is shameful. You should know better.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
"Skilled developers" need to understand the system as it exists today or they will fail. Raganwald wasn't defending software patents; he was explaining the fallacious thinking in the parent's comment. Software patents are a horrible joke, but to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you!!!" won't result in a positive outcome for your company. As much as it makes my stomach turn, I'm forced to consider the ramifications of patent and IP (especially now that it's first to file instead of first to innovate) nearly every day.

Tichy 14y ago

It's obviously a ridiculous patent, so Apple can not possibly claim their competitors are piggy backing on their expensive research in this case. Also, let's ride with the carbon fibre example. Is it really desirable that the world will have to wait for 50+ years until carbon fibre bicycles can be made accessible to the mainstream? Let's not forget that it is the public, proxied by the government, who grants patents, so obviously they should only grant patents if it benefits the public. This is not the case with patent trolling, because it only stiffles innovation (basically you need an army of lawyers to do anything interesting) and drives up prices.