Apple CEO Tim Cook says America's IP environment needs more work
In the midst of a larger discussion with U.S. senators on international corporate taxes, Apple CEO Tim Cook took an aside to discuss another area of regulation where the iPhone maker would like to see changes: the United States' intellectual property protection environment.
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) broke from the larger topic of discussion to talk intellectual property with Cook during Tuesday's Senate hearing on taxes. Asked by Ayotte about the intellectual property benefits of running a company based in the United States versus those in other countries, Cook responded that, actually, the U.S. system could use improvement.
"I actually think," Cook said, "that we require much more work on IP in this country."
The Apple chief's response appeared to take Ayotte aback, as she had been asking on intellectual property in the context of China, where bootleg Apple Stores have occasionally been known to spring up.
Cook specifically pointed out the slowness of the U.S. court system, which can take years to resolve or even come to trial. The process, Cook said, is ill-suited to deal with the realities of the technology sector, which can move through several cycles in the time it takes the court system to resolve one case.
"The U.S. court system is currently structured in such a way," Cook said, "that it's currently difficult to get the protections a technology company needs, because the cycle is very long."
Cook no doubt was referring to Apple's ongoing struggles with a variety of manufacturers making devices running Google's mobile operating system, Android. More specifically, the Apple head likely referred to South Korea's Samsung, which leveraged close knowledge of Apple's operations to turn itself into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer in terms of units sold.
Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung when a jury found last year that Samsung had infringed numerous Apple patents. That decision, though, is currently wrapped up in the appeal process, and part of the verdict has been set aside, possibly for an entirely new trial.
Aside from that first verdict, Apple also has another suit in the U.S. against Samsung. Apple recently sought to add Samsung's newest flagship smartphone to that suit, alleging that the South Korean phone maker continues to infringe Apple patents. That suit, though, isn't scheduled to begin until 2014, underlining Cook's point on timing and cycles.
"For us, our intellectual property is so important to our company," Cook said. "I would love to see the system strengthened to protect it."
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) broke from the larger topic of discussion to talk intellectual property with Cook during Tuesday's Senate hearing on taxes. Asked by Ayotte about the intellectual property benefits of running a company based in the United States versus those in other countries, Cook responded that, actually, the U.S. system could use improvement.
"I actually think," Cook said, "that we require much more work on IP in this country."
The Apple chief's response appeared to take Ayotte aback, as she had been asking on intellectual property in the context of China, where bootleg Apple Stores have occasionally been known to spring up.
Cook specifically pointed out the slowness of the U.S. court system, which can take years to resolve or even come to trial. The process, Cook said, is ill-suited to deal with the realities of the technology sector, which can move through several cycles in the time it takes the court system to resolve one case.
"The U.S. court system is currently structured in such a way," Cook said, "that it's currently difficult to get the protections a technology company needs, because the cycle is very long."
Cook no doubt was referring to Apple's ongoing struggles with a variety of manufacturers making devices running Google's mobile operating system, Android. More specifically, the Apple head likely referred to South Korea's Samsung, which leveraged close knowledge of Apple's operations to turn itself into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer in terms of units sold.
Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung when a jury found last year that Samsung had infringed numerous Apple patents. That decision, though, is currently wrapped up in the appeal process, and part of the verdict has been set aside, possibly for an entirely new trial.
Aside from that first verdict, Apple also has another suit in the U.S. against Samsung. Apple recently sought to add Samsung's newest flagship smartphone to that suit, alleging that the South Korean phone maker continues to infringe Apple patents. That suit, though, isn't scheduled to begin until 2014, underlining Cook's point on timing and cycles.
"For us, our intellectual property is so important to our company," Cook said. "I would love to see the system strengthened to protect it."
Comments
Quote:
"For us, our intellectual property is so important to our company," Cook said. "I would love to see the system strengthened to protect it."
A small correction. I would love to see the system strengthened so that Samsung would get necked out of this country.
Have to say that Cook did a very good job in dealing with the senators who really are looking for sound bites to show how strong they are against corporate america. He maintained his cool, and did not rise to the bait that they tried to get him to so they could look good.
Rand Paul's comment about "why are we even having these hearings on apple" made me reassess Paul in a much more favorable light. Plus it was funny.
Like bank robbers congress will go where the potential money is, and right now that is apple.
Cook wisely did not bring that up - because it's a ridiculous argument.
There's nothing illegal or immoral about patent holding companies suing (What Lodsys did is somewhat different). The so-called 'patent trolls' serve a useful place in helping to manage US IP.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
That's the smarmiest frownsmile yet! That's the frownsmile of a man who knows he's absolutely in the right.
Tim Cook, showing Congress how to look smug.
That's some bush league smug there.
That was Tim contorting so as not to roll his eyes and sigh as he has no doubt been training for weeks not to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Cook wisely did not bring that up - because it's a ridiculous argument.
There's nothing illegal or immoral about patent holding companies suing (What Lodsys did is somewhat different). The so-called 'patent trolls' serve a useful place in helping to manage US IP.
The "so-called" patent trolls might, but the actual ones don't. Yes, we know you are a denier, but your position is entirely untenable, and we all know there are companies who hold patents solely for purposes contrary to the purpose for which they are issued, or authorized by our constitution. We've been over this dozens of times here on these forums, and the argument that there are no patent trolls, or that they are actually good, has never held any water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Cook wisely did not bring that up - because it's a ridiculous argument.
There's nothing illegal or immoral about patent holding companies suing (What Lodsys did is somewhat different). The so-called 'patent trolls' serve a useful place in helping to manage US IP.
Agree completely. The reason trolls are necessary is because of the slow and expensive legal system. Large companies that rip off technology (Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) use legal costs to prevent legitimate patent holders from suing for patent infringement. A big company like Google or Samsung can make a patent lawsuit cost 2-5 million dollars. How many small inventors do you know that have 2-5 million to roll the dice and find out if their patent is valid and enforceable. The trolls buy up these patents and average out the risk that one of them loses.
THAAAAANKS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The "so-called" patent trolls might, but the actual ones don't. Yes, we know you are a denier, but your position is entirely untenable, and we all know there are companies who hold patents solely for purposes contrary to the purpose for which they are issued, or authorized by our constitution. We've been over this dozens of times here on these forums, and the argument that there are no patent trolls, or that they are actually good, has never held any water.
I just articulated a well-reasoned argument for why trolls are necessary and good and that their existence is the consequence of bad behavior by large corporations. (see post 9) Please try replying to Jragosta's comment (post 5) with an argument that has rational underpinnings. Your use of "denier" and "never held any water" are just a cover up for a lack of persuasion or reasoning.
As a patent attorney and inventor, I can assure you that the issue Cook raised is a HUGE problem. Patent lawsuits are a horrible game of bury the patent holder with endless filings, depositions, summary judgement motions, expert testimony, etc. etc. etc. Most of the time spent on a patent case has no legitimate purpose other than to waste money and delay. There are rules that are intended to prevent abuse of the legal system, but they are very difficult to enforce.
I'm glad to see Cook addressing this issue. For Apple, the issue is delay, not cost. However, the same tactics are used to increase cost, which has the effect of preventing small inventors from enforcing their patents and results in patent trolls picking them up for pennies on the dollar. It is a huge injustice to small inventors and legitimate large companies trying to enforce a patent at a critical juncture in market development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider
Have to say that Cook did a very good job in dealing with the senators who really are looking for sound bites to show how strong they are against corporate america. He maintained his cool, and did not rise to the bait that they tried to get him to so they could look good.
Rand Paul's comment about "why are we even having these hearings on apple" made me reassess Paul in a much more favorable light. Plus it was funny.
Like bank robbers congress will go where the potential money is, and right now that is apple.
While I agree about Cook's class today, I disagree with everything else...
- These Senators are not 'anti corporate', but merely posturing to get corporate taxes lowered from 35% (which none of them pay) down to nothing. Stick us with the bills for the infrastructure that makes their profits possible.
- Rand Paul is merely railing against taxes in general... the king of the 'Free Lunch Republicans'. He wants no infrastructure investments, no taxes, no safety net, just Somalia. He's a truly dispicable excuse for a human being.
Infringers like Samsung profit enormously from their actions and leverage those profits to reap ever greater profits. There's no going back in time with the present legal system.
There's a reason Samsung spends so much on advertising: Samsung products are inferior to Apple and Samsung has the ill-gotten gains with which to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
On top of the time issue there's all the suits by patent holding companies and things like how difficult it has proven for Apple to step in against Lodsys going after developers who are, according to Apple, covered by a patent exhaustion agreement paid for by Apple when they licensed the IAP tech from the previous owners. As soon as Apple said that the courts should have frozen all cases, barred Lodsys from starting anymore or doing any settlements while Apple's claim was validated. IF Apple was proven wrong then Lodsys could have at it.
Apple has used holding companies, so I don't think they would criticize that specific point without acknowledging their current function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
As a patent attorney and inventor, I can assure you that the issue Cook raised is a HUGE problem. Patent lawsuits are a horrible game of bury the patent holder with endless filings, depositions, summary judgement motions, expert testimony, etc. etc. etc. Most of the time spent on a patent case has no legitimate purpose other than to waste money and delay. There are rules that are intended to prevent abuse of the legal system, but they are very difficult to enforce.
I'm glad to see Cook addressing this issue. For Apple, the issue is delay, not cost. However, the same tactics are used to increase cost, which has the effect of preventing small inventors from enforcing their patents and results in patent trolls picking them up for pennies on the dollar. It is a huge injustice to small inventors and legitimate large companies trying to enforce a patent at a critical juncture in market development.
I've always wondered why those things weren't handled by arbitration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's some bush league smug there.
That is some Liberal league spin there!!
You know he is a Democrat, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
THAAAAANKS!
Carl Levin is a Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin
Fixed.
I have no idea what your reply has to do with mine. Mine is a direct reply to the word smug with the South Park snapshot from Smug Alert. Even TS's comment is about him looking smug. I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans are capable of looking smug.
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
That is some Liberal league spin there!!
You know he is a Democrat, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin
Why do I care?
Why does it matter?
If you're trying to discern my "political" leanings from making fun of complete idiots, the only conclusion you'd come to is that I'm a member of no party, including the "no party" party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why do I care?
Why does it matter?
If you're trying to discern my "political" leanings from making fun of complete idiots, the only conclusion you'd come to is that I'm a member of no party, including the "no party" party.
I dunno, why did you make such a stupid comment then?
It only matters in the fact that you tried to associate Bush with smugness by pointing to a Democrat. Why did you not just say political smugness? So it is a bit funny you were trying to make a point against Bush and him being smug while pointing to a Democrat. Typical Liberal.
I was not trying to discern, but rather you made the reference to Bush rather than politicians in general. You called yourself out on that one.