10 ms·

Didn't Apple start suing Android OEMs first? If I remember correctly, there was a mutual destruction pact before then.

Terretta 14y ago
No, check the timeline history. Apple did not start this. The smartphone incumbents did, after Apple started eating all the profits.
- adventureful 14y ago
  So are you saying that Samsung sued Apple first when it comes to smart phones and tablets? I would be very interested to see that case history.
- CrazedGeek 14y ago
  Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).
  - Terretta 14y ago
    Months ago I outlined the history with cases here in long comments. I'll look it up again and comment here later today or tomorrow.
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      If something needs long winded comments, I am skeptical. For example, did HTC do something to litigate with Apple that caused Apple to sue HTC? I don't see anything like that. If you assert that Apple sued HTC because Nokia sued Apple first, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Nokia isn't even an Android OEM.
      - sjwright 14y ago
        If someone refuses to accept the need for a nuanced response, I am skeptical of their opinion.
        cooldeal 14y ago
        Still waiting for this so-called nuanced response.
    - Terretta 14y ago
      Using HN Search, I found one of the comments (there are others with contemporary who's suing who diagrams, but haven't found them yet): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 Over two years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn't well prepared for this. (They've learned fast.) This wasn't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp. The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents, but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be landing in Apple's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were patents that it was actively defending. This pushed Apple to file against HTC, and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly) suing one another before Apple got to the table.
  - davidw 14y ago
    Nokia got holed below the waterline and is doing its best to make its way to port, in Seattle.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  Does it matter? The specific patent that is being used to block these devices, which from what I've read relates to a very weak patent on live search-as-you-type from multiple sources, is a bad patent. It is one thing to say "They are stealing our design." It is another to say, "We happened to get here and patent this first, even though everyone is pretty sure that given enough time and money the patent will be struck down... but we're going to sue anyways." One is a economically sound, consumer benefitting action. The other is the opposite. Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them. No one benefits from a patent apocalypse, least of all patent holders. In this, many other companies have shown much more restraint. But still, I sort of get it. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money (by not expanding their engineering capacity enough) so that they're in the awkward situation of having to litigate to try and keep up. Apple has never pretended to have scruples in the legal department, so it's not out of character for them to twist the broken patent system to its very limits to get what they want. But we should call them on it. Maybe we should even inform our purchases with that knowledge, because their business strategy is not good for us as consumers.
  - 0xABADC0DA 14y ago
    Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate? "Accept EULA to unlock?" They aren't at odds with engineering any more than having a good defense is at odds with having a good offense. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money That's really the heart of the matter. Patents were created to reward innovation by actually disadvantaging competitors that sat around and waited -- because the market by itself doesn't produce brand new things just by competition. Even though Galaxy-whatever today may be a better phone and the economy is hurt on a small scale by holding it back a bit, the economy is improved on a large scale by rewarding the big innovations. The tech crowd doesn't get that a local meritocracy where the best phone wins optimizes existing things, like making a better keyboard or improved battery life, but it doesn't often lead to an iPhone or other revolutionary change. A pure merit-based market actually punishes innovation -- if you spend years and a billion dollars researching HCI, form factors, etc and your competitors just copy you then you are competing with a billion dollar hand tied behind your back. Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that unless Apple's competitors need to compete much more effectively in order to make up for their lack of innovation then the market has failed.
- mrich 14y ago
  According to this Wikipedia article this is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars Nokia started suing Apple in 2009. I do not consider them a smartphone incumbent. After some back and forth between the two companies Apple sued the first Android manufacturer (HTC).

No, check the timeline history. Apple did not start this. The smartphone incumbents did, after Apple started eating all the profits.

adventureful 14y ago
So are you saying that Samsung sued Apple first when it comes to smart phones and tablets? I would be very interested to see that case history.
CrazedGeek 14y ago
Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).
- Terretta 14y ago
  Months ago I outlined the history with cases here in long comments. I'll look it up again and comment here later today or tomorrow.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    If something needs long winded comments, I am skeptical. For example, did HTC do something to litigate with Apple that caused Apple to sue HTC? I don't see anything like that. If you assert that Apple sued HTC because Nokia sued Apple first, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Nokia isn't even an Android OEM.
    - sjwright 14y ago
      If someone refuses to accept the need for a nuanced response, I am skeptical of their opinion.
      - cooldeal 14y ago
        Still waiting for this so-called nuanced response.
  - Terretta 14y ago
    Using HN Search, I found one of the comments (there are others with contemporary who's suing who diagrams, but haven't found them yet): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 Over two years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn't well prepared for this. (They've learned fast.) This wasn't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp. The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents, but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be landing in Apple's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were patents that it was actively defending. This pushed Apple to file against HTC, and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly) suing one another before Apple got to the table.
- davidw 14y ago
  Nokia got holed below the waterline and is doing its best to make its way to port, in Seattle.
KirinDave 14y ago
Does it matter? The specific patent that is being used to block these devices, which from what I've read relates to a very weak patent on live search-as-you-type from multiple sources, is a bad patent. It is one thing to say "They are stealing our design." It is another to say, "We happened to get here and patent this first, even though everyone is pretty sure that given enough time and money the patent will be struck down... but we're going to sue anyways." One is a economically sound, consumer benefitting action. The other is the opposite. Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them. No one benefits from a patent apocalypse, least of all patent holders. In this, many other companies have shown much more restraint. But still, I sort of get it. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money (by not expanding their engineering capacity enough) so that they're in the awkward situation of having to litigate to try and keep up. Apple has never pretended to have scruples in the legal department, so it's not out of character for them to twist the broken patent system to its very limits to get what they want. But we should call them on it. Maybe we should even inform our purchases with that knowledge, because their business strategy is not good for us as consumers.
- 0xABADC0DA 14y ago
  Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate? "Accept EULA to unlock?" They aren't at odds with engineering any more than having a good defense is at odds with having a good offense. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money That's really the heart of the matter. Patents were created to reward innovation by actually disadvantaging competitors that sat around and waited -- because the market by itself doesn't produce brand new things just by competition. Even though Galaxy-whatever today may be a better phone and the economy is hurt on a small scale by holding it back a bit, the economy is improved on a large scale by rewarding the big innovations. The tech crowd doesn't get that a local meritocracy where the best phone wins optimizes existing things, like making a better keyboard or improved battery life, but it doesn't often lead to an iPhone or other revolutionary change. A pure merit-based market actually punishes innovation -- if you spend years and a billion dollars researching HCI, form factors, etc and your competitors just copy you then you are competing with a billion dollar hand tied behind your back. Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that unless Apple's competitors need to compete much more effectively in order to make up for their lack of innovation then the market has failed.
mrich 14y ago
According to this Wikipedia article this is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars Nokia started suing Apple in 2009. I do not consider them a smartphone incumbent. After some back and forth between the two companies Apple sued the first Android manufacturer (HTC).