6 ms·

>Surely even the most hardcore Apple fanatic thinks this is completely unnecessary and designed to stifle competition? My guess is they'll laud the decision.

AllenKids 14y ago
Yes, the battle is nasty and Samsung/Google (both are immensely powerful, and not human) is in no danger of being driven out. Why should I feel bad about it? I'd like to see 3X damage preferably as an AAPL shareholder.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  While that is a somewhat rational viewpoint, I am old-fashioned enough to consider the philosophy that right and wrong don't matter, only profits, to be unhealthy.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    It would be rational if Apple could somehow be certain that they have duly licensed all applicable patents for the technology in all of their products. So, no... it's about as rational as stripping naked and running through Times Square with a vuvuzela, daring the cops to come after you.
    - AllenKids 14y ago
      It is rational cause Apple can be sure that it does not willfully infringe on others patents and risks regarding those patents mines unavoidable can be managed through ad hoc negotiation and lawyers, lots of lawyers. Given such a high profile case just resulted in a puny $1B amount, with its over $100B war chest, Apple can take a few dozens of these lawsuits easily. Let's see who's willing to go against Apple and comes out ahead.
  - AllenKids 14y ago
    Apple is not a company only focus on profits, far from it, regardless what every other HNer is trying to paint them to be. Philosophically what is right and wrong, and to whom? That's another question. Of course using metaphysics to muddling the water is not my intention, but even using the common sense definition of "right and wrong" I still do not see what Apple does here as "evil" or "unhealthy". It is self serving to be sure, but I'm not convinced that the market is necessarily harmed in the process. There is and will be fierce competition in the mobile arena for many years to come unlike the portable music player market. Anyone is willing to take a bet against my observation? Apple is using the system to its own advantage, just as Google, if wielding patent bat is fundamentally wrong, then Google the white knight in shinning armor is a bigger cunt for its hypocrisy.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      Not sure how Google can be seen as hypocrites. They avoided the realm of patent warfare until it was clearly unavoidable.
      - AllenKids 14y ago
        They avoid the realm of patent warfare until they purchase relevant patents.
        mcantelon 14y ago
        Yes, when it became clear Apple was going to continue to rely on patent warfare as a business strategy, they secured patents.
        AllenKids 14y ago
        So you are saying that sometimes swinging the patent stick can be right?
        mcantelon 14y ago
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  No, you wouldn't. If you don't think that Apple has more to lose from America's insane patent system than they could possibly stand to gain, I'd submit that you haven't thought the question through all the way. Do you think even they could afford to pay treble damages on every patent claim they actually infringe?
  - cageface 14y ago
    This is the point I keep trying to make in this argument. In the long run this suit sets a bad precedent for everybody, including Apple. The patent trolls are licking their chops after this judgement.
  - AllenKids 14y ago
    Oh, but Apple has been operating in this insane environment for 30+ years and trolls come out of the woodwork every week trying to get some quick buck off of them. And Apple has had lost a few IP fights in its years. I'm confident to say Apple and its army of lawyers will be doing just fine in America's insane patent system. So the answer is no, I do not think Apple is incompetent enough to have to pay triple damages on every patent claim they actually infringe or do not infringe.

AllenKids 14y ago

Yes, the battle is nasty and Samsung/Google (both are immensely powerful, and not human) is in no danger of being driven out. Why should I feel bad about it? I'd like to see 3X damage preferably as an AAPL shareholder.

mcantelon 14y ago
While that is a somewhat rational viewpoint, I am old-fashioned enough to consider the philosophy that right and wrong don't matter, only profits, to be unhealthy.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  It would be rational if Apple could somehow be certain that they have duly licensed all applicable patents for the technology in all of their products. So, no... it's about as rational as stripping naked and running through Times Square with a vuvuzela, daring the cops to come after you.
  - AllenKids 14y ago
    It is rational cause Apple can be sure that it does not willfully infringe on others patents and risks regarding those patents mines unavoidable can be managed through ad hoc negotiation and lawyers, lots of lawyers. Given such a high profile case just resulted in a puny $1B amount, with its over $100B war chest, Apple can take a few dozens of these lawsuits easily. Let's see who's willing to go against Apple and comes out ahead.
- AllenKids 14y ago
  Apple is not a company only focus on profits, far from it, regardless what every other HNer is trying to paint them to be. Philosophically what is right and wrong, and to whom? That's another question. Of course using metaphysics to muddling the water is not my intention, but even using the common sense definition of "right and wrong" I still do not see what Apple does here as "evil" or "unhealthy". It is self serving to be sure, but I'm not convinced that the market is necessarily harmed in the process. There is and will be fierce competition in the mobile arena for many years to come unlike the portable music player market. Anyone is willing to take a bet against my observation? Apple is using the system to its own advantage, just as Google, if wielding patent bat is fundamentally wrong, then Google the white knight in shinning armor is a bigger cunt for its hypocrisy.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    Not sure how Google can be seen as hypocrites. They avoided the realm of patent warfare until it was clearly unavoidable.
    - AllenKids 14y ago
      They avoid the realm of patent warfare until they purchase relevant patents.
      - mcantelon 14y ago
        Yes, when it became clear Apple was going to continue to rely on patent warfare as a business strategy, they secured patents.
        AllenKids 14y ago
        So you are saying that sometimes swinging the patent stick can be right?
        mcantelon 14y ago
CamperBob2 14y ago
No, you wouldn't. If you don't think that Apple has more to lose from America's insane patent system than they could possibly stand to gain, I'd submit that you haven't thought the question through all the way. Do you think even they could afford to pay treble damages on every patent claim they actually infringe?
- cageface 14y ago
  This is the point I keep trying to make in this argument. In the long run this suit sets a bad precedent for everybody, including Apple. The patent trolls are licking their chops after this judgement.
- AllenKids 14y ago
  Oh, but Apple has been operating in this insane environment for 30+ years and trolls come out of the woodwork every week trying to get some quick buck off of them. And Apple has had lost a few IP fights in its years. I'm confident to say Apple and its army of lawyers will be doing just fine in America's insane patent system. So the answer is no, I do not think Apple is incompetent enough to have to pay triple damages on every patent claim they actually infringe or do not infringe.