5 ms·

For the dozenth time: this is not some radical choice Apple made. Apple is, as a public company, responsible to act in its own interest within the current econo

For the dozenth time: this is not some radical choice Apple made. Apple is, as a public company, responsible to act in its own interest within the current economic system. The system is screwed up, but that doesn't mean that any single company has a responsibility to unilaterally disarm.

magicalist 14y ago
Yeah...that's silly. If that were the case, you'd see a lot more patent trolls and Captain-Planet-villain-style polluting, for just a start. Being a public company means there is pressure on you to be profitable (and pressure for other dumb things...see: minority shareholder demands when Steve Jobs was sick), yes, but the power shareholders and charters wield aren't that strong. People actually talk about this wrt Apple all the time when they talk about all the crap products Apple doesn't release and markets Apple doesn't enter to make sure they do right by what they do release and serve the markets they do enter. Even if you take a simplistic view of "businesses exist to maximize profit", there are a ton of secondary effects you need to worry about (dilution of brand, perception by the public, narrative for the media, the momentum your workforce feels, alienation of partners, etc, etc, etc). You're basically talking "maximize short term profits", which Apple has already shown they're willing to somewhat forgo in exchange for (massive) longterm gains.
wissler 14y ago
It is their moral responsibility not to initiate attacks. They can morally use patents only defensively.
ajross 14y ago
Aggressive product-killing patent suits are not the norm, nor are they part of "the system" or "the game" as it's traditionally been practiced. Tech patents have been used to drive revenue: invent stuff, file patents, find infringers, negotiate for a royalty, sue if you can't come to agreement and eventually settle for whatever royalty you end up with. Apple isn't the only bad actor in the mobile space right now. And other companies (c.f. Rambus) have been much worse in the past. But it's just not correct to argue that they were "forced" to act this way by their obligations to their shareholders. Don't make excuses.
- Steko 14y ago
  And what if the other side doesn't want to settle? Isn't the threat of injunction a large part of what drives infringers to settle on a royalty or stop infringement?
  - ajross 14y ago
    The reporting as it stands is that Apple's demands (something like $30/unit I think?) weren't something that could be meaningfully "negotiated". Obviously there's complexity here, but the same logic goes the other way: if Samsung felt they could get a significant discount on that $1B award via negotiation, surely they would have cut that deal, no?
    - Steko 14y ago
      From what was presented at trial the $30/unit was the first offer and basically Samsung didn't counter-propose anything. It could very well be that Apple was inflexible on the $30 figure but to me a starting offer of $30/unit implies a settlement somewhere at or below $20/unit. Also note that the Apple offer included significant discounts that could wittle the per unit cost down by 20%/40%/60% for various things (or up to 100% if they also used Windows Phone instead of Android). A settlement at $15 a unit with a 40%-60% discount would only be $6-$9 a unit. Considering Samsung pays Microsoft $5-$10 a unit this doesn't seem all that crazy.
doktrin 14y ago
Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but that rationale does not sway me. Having an obligation to shareholders is not an obligation to pursue profits by any and all means not expressly prohibited by law. If I'm wrong, and that this is in fact what having shareholder obligations truly should mean, then we have a much bigger problem than the patent wars.
nitrogen 14y ago
As the largest market cap public company on the planet, Apple was doing just fine for its shareholders. When have you ever heard the leading company in a market say they're going "thermonuclear" against their main competitor?

magicalist 14y ago

Yeah...that's silly. If that were the case, you'd see a lot more patent trolls and Captain-Planet-villain-style polluting, for just a start. Being a public company means there is pressure on you to be profitable (and pressure for other dumb things...see: minority shareholder demands when Steve Jobs was sick), yes, but the power shareholders and charters wield aren't that strong. People actually talk about this wrt Apple all the time when they talk about all the crap products Apple doesn't release and markets Apple doesn't enter to make sure they do right by what they do release and serve the markets they do enter. Even if you take a simplistic view of "businesses exist to maximize profit", there are a ton of secondary effects you need to worry about (dilution of brand, perception by the public, narrative for the media, the momentum your workforce feels, alienation of partners, etc, etc, etc). You're basically talking "maximize short term profits", which Apple has already shown they're willing to somewhat forgo in exchange for (massive) longterm gains.

wissler 14y ago

It is their moral responsibility not to initiate attacks. They can morally use patents only defensively.

ajross 14y ago

Aggressive product-killing patent suits are not the norm, nor are they part of "the system" or "the game" as it's traditionally been practiced. Tech patents have been used to drive revenue: invent stuff, file patents, find infringers, negotiate for a royalty, sue if you can't come to agreement and eventually settle for whatever royalty you end up with. Apple isn't the only bad actor in the mobile space right now. And other companies (c.f. Rambus) have been much worse in the past. But it's just not correct to argue that they were "forced" to act this way by their obligations to their shareholders. Don't make excuses.

Steko 14y ago
And what if the other side doesn't want to settle? Isn't the threat of injunction a large part of what drives infringers to settle on a royalty or stop infringement?
- ajross 14y ago
  The reporting as it stands is that Apple's demands (something like $30/unit I think?) weren't something that could be meaningfully "negotiated". Obviously there's complexity here, but the same logic goes the other way: if Samsung felt they could get a significant discount on that $1B award via negotiation, surely they would have cut that deal, no?
  - Steko 14y ago
    From what was presented at trial the $30/unit was the first offer and basically Samsung didn't counter-propose anything. It could very well be that Apple was inflexible on the $30 figure but to me a starting offer of $30/unit implies a settlement somewhere at or below $20/unit. Also note that the Apple offer included significant discounts that could wittle the per unit cost down by 20%/40%/60% for various things (or up to 100% if they also used Windows Phone instead of Android). A settlement at $15 a unit with a 40%-60% discount would only be $6-$9 a unit. Considering Samsung pays Microsoft $5-$10 a unit this doesn't seem all that crazy.

doktrin 14y ago

Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but that rationale does not sway me. Having an obligation to shareholders is not an obligation to pursue profits by any and all means not expressly prohibited by law. If I'm wrong, and that this is in fact what having shareholder obligations truly should mean, then we have a much bigger problem than the patent wars.

nitrogen 14y ago

As the largest market cap public company on the planet, Apple was doing just fine for its shareholders. When have you ever heard the leading company in a market say they're going "thermonuclear" against their main competitor?