10 ms·

This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fan

This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it. Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.

eta_carinae 14y ago
> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? Because of Android. The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets). I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).
- smsm42 14y ago
  What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?
jivatmanx 14y ago
Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.
- bigfudge2 14y ago
  How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
  - 1SaltwaterC 14y ago
    Probably?
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.
    - JasonFruit 14y ago
      I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.
        mkr-hn 14y ago
        It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.
    - javajosh 14y ago
      Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.
kingnothing 14y ago
If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  I thought that only applied to trademarks.
  - Sander_Marechal 14y ago
    It does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).
  - danielweber 14y ago
    It applies to patents, too.
    - vetinari 14y ago
      Not true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        In Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches. It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.
v0cab 14y ago
> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  I can't find any reference to this. Could you point me at a source please?
  - malenm 14y ago
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html
    - AndrewDucker 14y ago
      Fascinating - thank you!
- jkn 14y ago
  Note that the policy of protecting local cell phone manufacturers predates the iPhone (according to malenm's reference).
mbesto 14y ago
When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish? Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.
- deong 14y ago
  I believe that suing everyone under the sun for patent infringement is a public stance on patent laws.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > "When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?" Ever hear of being the bigger man? Encountering a child is no reason for an adult to act like a child.
tatsuke95 14y ago
>Frankly I just don't get it Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy. I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.
- erikpukinskis 14y ago
  > relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >"You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise" No, I realize it. These strategies are open and replicable. Apple is great at them, but other companies are closing the gap. Supply chain means margins, and those are getting squeezed. Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique. What they've done with the brand, on the other hand, is remarkable. Apple is a status symbol. You think "fanboyism" occurs only on hacker sites? Go to any forum anywhere and people are vehemently praising the company. It may be my opinion, but it's the most valuable thing they have, and why they protect it at all costs, up to and including disobeying orders and making sure people know that competitors aren't as cool.
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      > Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique. Not really at all. The supply chain management allows them to get it to you for a similar price while achieving margins that other companies would kill to have even half of.
Shivetya 14y ago
I think Mr. Cook needs to rid Apple of a few more bad ones. I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  You're right. Mr Cook has good reason to P45 (British pink slip) the UK legal team for their poor advice, but a fish rots from the head.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Groxx 14y ago
    But gangrene frequently afflicts extremities. And fish heads are not often replaceable. Metaphors often (generally?) make poor arguments for why X does Y.
    - JabavuAdams 14y ago
      More generally, aphorisms and allegory are specifically created to prove a point. They can never constitute evidence, only persuasion. The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese, and all that.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Perhaps a good expression is "A few bad Apple employees^W^Wapples spoil the barrel". In other words, the decay started by a few will quickly rot an entire batch, if the good and the bad are kept together too long.
kemiller 14y ago
Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.
- reddit_clone 14y ago
  It is a proxy war against Android. For reasons I can not fathom, Android scares Apple. And they lash out against it violently. Samsung is collateral damage.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price. I'd be worried too.
    - eridius 14y ago
      I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Okay? Android's experience has been evolving from day one. iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from). "Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS. At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650. I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???
drivebyacct2 14y ago
The same reason their last keynote spent an inordinate amount of time talking about specific Android device(s).

eta_carinae 14y ago

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? Because of Android. The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets). I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).

smsm42 14y ago
What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?

jivatmanx 14y ago

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

bigfudge2 14y ago
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
- 1SaltwaterC 14y ago
  Probably?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.
  - JasonFruit 14y ago
    I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.

kingnothing 14y ago

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

mkr-hn 14y ago
I thought that only applied to trademarks.
- Sander_Marechal 14y ago
  It does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).
- danielweber 14y ago
  It applies to patents, too.
  - vetinari 14y ago
    Not true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      In Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches. It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.

v0cab 14y ago

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.

AndrewDucker 14y ago
I can't find any reference to this. Could you point me at a source please?
- malenm 14y ago
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html
  - AndrewDucker 14y ago
    Fascinating - thank you!
jkn 14y ago
Note that the policy of protecting local cell phone manufacturers predates the iPhone (according to malenm's reference).

mbesto 14y ago

When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish? Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.

deong 14y ago
I believe that suing everyone under the sun for patent infringement is a public stance on patent laws.
jlgreco 14y ago
> "When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?" Ever hear of being the bigger man? Encountering a child is no reason for an adult to act like a child.

tatsuke95 14y ago

>Frankly I just don't get it Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy. I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.

erikpukinskis 14y ago
> relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >"You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise" No, I realize it. These strategies are open and replicable. Apple is great at them, but other companies are closing the gap. Supply chain means margins, and those are getting squeezed. Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique. What they've done with the brand, on the other hand, is remarkable. Apple is a status symbol. You think "fanboyism" occurs only on hacker sites? Go to any forum anywhere and people are vehemently praising the company. It may be my opinion, but it's the most valuable thing they have, and why they protect it at all costs, up to and including disobeying orders and making sure people know that competitors aren't as cool.
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    > Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique. Not really at all. The supply chain management allows them to get it to you for a similar price while achieving margins that other companies would kill to have even half of.

Shivetya 14y ago

I think Mr. Cook needs to rid Apple of a few more bad ones. I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.

bitcartel 14y ago
You're right. Mr Cook has good reason to P45 (British pink slip) the UK legal team for their poor advice, but a fish rots from the head.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Groxx 14y ago
  But gangrene frequently afflicts extremities. And fish heads are not often replaceable. Metaphors often (generally?) make poor arguments for why X does Y.
  - JabavuAdams 14y ago
    More generally, aphorisms and allegory are specifically created to prove a point. They can never constitute evidence, only persuasion. The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese, and all that.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Perhaps a good expression is "A few bad Apple employees^W^Wapples spoil the barrel". In other words, the decay started by a few will quickly rot an entire batch, if the good and the bad are kept together too long.

kemiller 14y ago

Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.

reddit_clone 14y ago
It is a proxy war against Android. For reasons I can not fathom, Android scares Apple. And they lash out against it violently. Samsung is collateral damage.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price. I'd be worried too.
  - eridius 14y ago
    I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Okay? Android's experience has been evolving from day one. iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from). "Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS. At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650. I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???

drivebyacct2 14y ago

The same reason their last keynote spent an inordinate amount of time talking about specific Android device(s).