5 ms·

Big distinction is that Apple lost their big court case with Microsoft in the 90s.

• confluence 14y ago
  Key point here is suing your competition to remain competitive is an indicator of a coming fall.
  • arn 14y ago
    Or that losing a key look and feel lawsuit means the competition can copy you without fear, losing your distinctiveness. I don't think its that black and white but suggesting the lawsuit, and not the lawsuit outcome, is somehow responsible for a company's lack-of-success is silly.
    • confluence 14y ago
      > losing your distinctiveness You honestly think that is why they lost? They lost because the stopped trying to compete - and just ran off to "Mommy" government screaming "Microsoft took my toy!" instead of fighting back. And I didn't sell on outcome - this was a relatively short case - I was just waiting for the market to increase my exit price - 660 - from 600 (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL).
      • pazimzadeh 14y ago
        What do you mean, they stopped trying to compete? Are you implying that Jony Ive and Scott Forstall are sitting on their butts right now thinking "good thing we won, we won't have to compete any more?" What evidence do you have that they've stopped competing? Anyway, maybe you should have waited until the new iPhone and iPad come out before selling your stock.
        • confluence 14y ago
          It's quite simple. If you sue your competition to win - you will lose because the reason for your success is not protecting your IP rights (which can and will be abused as soon as you succeed - relentlessly) - but by making new IP. Disney rocks not because of Mickey Mouse - it rocks because of Pixar. Google rocks not because of PageRank - but because of pushing the edge of search and AI. Tesla rocks not because of the Roadster - but because of the cars yet to come. What you've done in the past means nothing in intellectual pursuits - it's what you are going to do that matters. The only places Apple can enter now are to continue trying to grow PC market share and Virtual Reality. Google does both better.
          • arn 14y ago
            Yes, if you stop innovating, then another company can innovate their way to your marketshare. No argument there. The argument is that you see initiating a lawsuit as a sign that a company is not innovating. A lawsuit and a company's ability to innovate are independent variables.
          • mcclux 14y ago
            So how does this philosophy square with Google's recently filed lawsuit against Apple via Motorola's patents?
            • confluence 14y ago
              Apple started it - Google is defending both Samsung and it's Android product from the litigiousness of the new Apple.
              • sbuk 14y ago
                No. Nokia and Motorola did. If you are going to pontificate, get your facts right.
                • confluence 14y ago
      • arn 14y ago
        I don't think it comes down to a simple reason. But I certainly don't think it's because they filed a lawsuit. You seem to be of the opinion that you can't sue and also innovate. This is obviously false. The engineers arnt being pulled from projects to work on the lawsuit.
    • cageface 14y ago
      All Apple has gained here is an escalation in the patent war. Google's already fired back with their new Motorola patents and this verdict is going to send everybody scrambling back to the market for more patent acquisitions. In the meantime iOS is looking increasingly long in the tooth and nobody at Apple seems to be willing to take the kinds of chances that won them their success in this market in the first place. It's a classic innovator's dilemma, raising up a new king and then casting him down.
      • AllenKids 14y ago
        Apple holds on to ideas until it declares yesterday's crown jewel garbage. Remember the funeral of classic Mac OS? All will be dead in time.