4 ms·

If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want are avail

If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want are available in Apple's products. You mention first-mover advantage ... that is exactly what patents are supposed to grant, you invent something cool, you get a patent on it, and then YOU get exclusivity on that invention for X years so you can recoup your costs of R&D. If company Y owns the patent and company X clones it and sells it for $50 cheaper company Y is now disadvantaged even-though it spent all of the money researching and developing it in the first place. Apparently the Judge agreed that company Y is in the right and that company X should no longer be allowed to sell their widget until the lawsuit is settled.

mtgx 14y ago
The slide-to-unlock in Galaxy Nexus is quite different from the one in iOS. I thought patents were given based on a certain implementation of an idea. And yet Apple still won the injunction with that alleged patent infringement.
- esolyt 14y ago
  The injunction was actually based on the unified search box patent only.
esolyt 14y ago
Having a patent to a feature does not necessarily mean you implemented it in your products. And besides, what if I want the extra features that Galaxy Nexus has?
kristiandupont 14y ago
> If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want are available in Apple's products. This statement is only true if (features that violate patents) == (all features of the product), which is obviously not the case.
przemelek 14y ago
Nope. It works slightly different, first companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and others invested billions of dollars in creating telecommunication standards. Next those companies are forced to license patents for those technologies to Apple. Apple creates phone which base in 95% on technology created by those companies, they are adding several features like "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zoom" and patent it. Samsung, Motorola and others looks on Apple product and says "OK, so it means that customers want other UI, we can give them it too", they are participants in OHA which created very similar to iPhone project of OS for mobile phones (in the same time). So they start to produce and sell such phones. Now Apple goes to court and pretends that theirs big "innovation" is so unique that it should let them to block anything similar to theirs "inventions" (in the same time Apple took notifications system from Android)... what is the most funny part, Motorola and Samsung must license to Apple patents needed to build cell phone, but Apple may do not license theirs patents. This cause that patents for cell phones which costed billions of dollars are cheap for Apple (but its competitors needed to pay billions for those), but patents from Apple which costed only money needed for filling patent applications are impossible to obtain by its competitors.
- calinet6 14y ago
  So, the takeaway is, "Damn, Apple is good at this capitalism game."
  - przemelek 14y ago
    Nope ;-) Problem with Apple is that if all players will play using Apple strategy we will not have any innovation at all. Motorola, Nokia, Samsung invested billions in mobile technology without knowing if this will even work, they risked and created cell phones and so on. They had big invest, big risk and at the end big win. Apple didn't take any risk, they simply polished existing products and started to sell it with much higher price tag. This isn't wrong, wrong is this that Apple tries to block another players using courts. Apple didn't make big invest, didn't take big risk, but takes biggest win by using patent system to force all competitors to give to Apple theirs patents (and when Motorola says, OK we want 2.5% of iPhone price as fee for our patents Apple screams that Motorola wants way too much... yeah, it's only essential technology for mobile phone, so who cares?), without letting them to use Apple's patents. If players like Motorola or Nokia would use Apple strategy we would simple still using line phones. Because nobody would invent cell phones, the best strategy would be to patent idea of cell phone and to wait till somebody will build it and to sue him. Patent system was intended to promote innovation, but here it isn't doing it, it is used to block innovation. Google didn't patent notifications, so thanks to this users of iOS5 may use much better notifications. Thanks to this that Google didn't patent it, users of Apple so competitor product may use it. But Apple patents all small things blocking other players. Apple behaves like parasite on innovation tree, and patent system should protect whole tree because this guarantee progress and innovation.
jclulow 14y ago
Suggesting that people should "just buy an iPad" is an unhelpful over-simplification. I appreciate that a patent is a state-granted monopoly on your idea. I feel it to be a mostly unhelpful right to be granting in the consumer software and device market. Regardless of how I feel about patents, though, an injunction prior to trial presupposes (on some level) that the charged party is guilty enough to warrant forcing them not to trade. Injunctions are often helpful in potential libel cases, where the release of libellous information may cause largely unmeasurable but generally irreversible damages. I really don't think they're helpful when the extent to which the charged party may benefit is able to be measured (i.e. profit on sales) and the tangible outcome of that benefit redirected to whomever wins the suit (via the court-ordered payment of damages).
ralfn 14y ago
This is nonsense. Even when all products are allowed on the market we generally do not get the features we desire. Its the paradox of choice, and how it makes people unhappy. If a shop sells peanut butter that is chunky, but also another brand that is extra spicy. Suddenly, we can imagine a peanut butter that is both chunky and spicy. So, the choice already feels limited with both products on the market and is now even more limited, when their feature set may not overlap. And as for the suggestion that these patents are the result of R&D. They are not. Not like some of the frand patents actually are. Originally, the patent system was invented to encourage sharing secrets. But if you cant keep it a secret, because its just too obvious, you shouldnt be able to get a patent. Patents are now mostly used in an anti competitive sense. The patent system, at least in these days, is counter productive. And the US will in time eat itself up. Because from China to Europe, we dont care about these ip laws to the same extent, and dont really serve our interests.
- simonbrown 14y ago
  Europe doesn't care about IP laws to the same extent as the US?
  - ralfn 14y ago
    Well, not all of Europe. It really depends on how much IP they have. So, holland, my country, is likely in favor of IP because with our current portfolio, the export of IP minus the import, is profitable. This is not the case for any eastern european country, nor for some of the more traditional economies in western europe. So beyond morality, for many countries, IP law just means opting in to pay other countries. And unlike traditional goods, you cant block the export or import of IP. You can only hope to compromize on some kind of compensation.
vidarh 14y ago
The Apple products don't meet my needs, due to their restrictions. Some Android devices do. For a lot of users, the features the users want will not be available in either product if Apple has it the way they want.

mtgx 14y ago

The slide-to-unlock in Galaxy Nexus is quite different from the one in iOS. I thought patents were given based on a certain implementation of an idea. And yet Apple still won the injunction with that alleged patent infringement.

esolyt 14y ago
The injunction was actually based on the unified search box patent only.

esolyt 14y ago

Having a patent to a feature does not necessarily mean you implemented it in your products. And besides, what if I want the extra features that Galaxy Nexus has?

kristiandupont 14y ago

> If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want are available in Apple's products. This statement is only true if (features that violate patents) == (all features of the product), which is obviously not the case.

przemelek 14y ago

Nope. It works slightly different, first companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and others invested billions of dollars in creating telecommunication standards. Next those companies are forced to license patents for those technologies to Apple. Apple creates phone which base in 95% on technology created by those companies, they are adding several features like "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zoom" and patent it. Samsung, Motorola and others looks on Apple product and says "OK, so it means that customers want other UI, we can give them it too", they are participants in OHA which created very similar to iPhone project of OS for mobile phones (in the same time). So they start to produce and sell such phones. Now Apple goes to court and pretends that theirs big "innovation" is so unique that it should let them to block anything similar to theirs "inventions" (in the same time Apple took notifications system from Android)... what is the most funny part, Motorola and Samsung must license to Apple patents needed to build cell phone, but Apple may do not license theirs patents. This cause that patents for cell phones which costed billions of dollars are cheap for Apple (but its competitors needed to pay billions for those), but patents from Apple which costed only money needed for filling patent applications are impossible to obtain by its competitors.

calinet6 14y ago
So, the takeaway is, "Damn, Apple is good at this capitalism game."
- przemelek 14y ago
  Nope ;-) Problem with Apple is that if all players will play using Apple strategy we will not have any innovation at all. Motorola, Nokia, Samsung invested billions in mobile technology without knowing if this will even work, they risked and created cell phones and so on. They had big invest, big risk and at the end big win. Apple didn't take any risk, they simply polished existing products and started to sell it with much higher price tag. This isn't wrong, wrong is this that Apple tries to block another players using courts. Apple didn't make big invest, didn't take big risk, but takes biggest win by using patent system to force all competitors to give to Apple theirs patents (and when Motorola says, OK we want 2.5% of iPhone price as fee for our patents Apple screams that Motorola wants way too much... yeah, it's only essential technology for mobile phone, so who cares?), without letting them to use Apple's patents. If players like Motorola or Nokia would use Apple strategy we would simple still using line phones. Because nobody would invent cell phones, the best strategy would be to patent idea of cell phone and to wait till somebody will build it and to sue him. Patent system was intended to promote innovation, but here it isn't doing it, it is used to block innovation. Google didn't patent notifications, so thanks to this users of iOS5 may use much better notifications. Thanks to this that Google didn't patent it, users of Apple so competitor product may use it. But Apple patents all small things blocking other players. Apple behaves like parasite on innovation tree, and patent system should protect whole tree because this guarantee progress and innovation.

jclulow 14y ago

Suggesting that people should "just buy an iPad" is an unhelpful over-simplification. I appreciate that a patent is a state-granted monopoly on your idea. I feel it to be a mostly unhelpful right to be granting in the consumer software and device market. Regardless of how I feel about patents, though, an injunction prior to trial presupposes (on some level) that the charged party is guilty enough to warrant forcing them not to trade. Injunctions are often helpful in potential libel cases, where the release of libellous information may cause largely unmeasurable but generally irreversible damages. I really don't think they're helpful when the extent to which the charged party may benefit is able to be measured (i.e. profit on sales) and the tangible outcome of that benefit redirected to whomever wins the suit (via the court-ordered payment of damages).

ralfn 14y ago

This is nonsense. Even when all products are allowed on the market we generally do not get the features we desire. Its the paradox of choice, and how it makes people unhappy. If a shop sells peanut butter that is chunky, but also another brand that is extra spicy. Suddenly, we can imagine a peanut butter that is both chunky and spicy. So, the choice already feels limited with both products on the market and is now even more limited, when their feature set may not overlap. And as for the suggestion that these patents are the result of R&D. They are not. Not like some of the frand patents actually are. Originally, the patent system was invented to encourage sharing secrets. But if you cant keep it a secret, because its just too obvious, you shouldnt be able to get a patent. Patents are now mostly used in an anti competitive sense. The patent system, at least in these days, is counter productive. And the US will in time eat itself up. Because from China to Europe, we dont care about these ip laws to the same extent, and dont really serve our interests.

simonbrown 14y ago
Europe doesn't care about IP laws to the same extent as the US?
- ralfn 14y ago
  Well, not all of Europe. It really depends on how much IP they have. So, holland, my country, is likely in favor of IP because with our current portfolio, the export of IP minus the import, is profitable. This is not the case for any eastern european country, nor for some of the more traditional economies in western europe. So beyond morality, for many countries, IP law just means opting in to pay other countries. And unlike traditional goods, you cant block the export or import of IP. You can only hope to compromize on some kind of compensation.

vidarh 14y ago

The Apple products don't meet my needs, due to their restrictions. Some Android devices do. For a lot of users, the features the users want will not be available in either product if Apple has it the way they want.