And there's the difference between Jobs and Cook which may give investors great confidence in Apple going forward:
It may well be that Jobs might agree with you, that he'd want to spend the company's money on such personal vendettas. But Cook governs with a cooler head.
Now before y'all rush to click "Reply" so you can write "Troll!", check out how Jonathan Ive describes Jobs in post #325 above.
People are complex. Jobs was a visionary, but we all have blind spots and Jobs was no exception.
Deification of his legacy will not help Apple; Jobs himself understood this, and made it clear the company should not spend time going forward locked in arguments about "What would Steve do?", but instead trusted Cook and Ive and others to exercise their own judgment.
That trust in Cook and Ive may well be among the most sound decisions Steve ever made. It benefits the community to respect that as we see changes going forward.
I wonder if Cook is a pushover? I honestly do. That could cause the company to fall. Steve had a blessing and a curse (HE WAS EMPLOYEE #0 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!). He did what he wanted....and this was ironically his success.
Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.
He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.
Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.
He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.
I also find it bothersome that Apple chooses to sue/attack the manufacturers of Android devices instead of suing Google directly. Attacking Google/Android via proxy seems childish. It seems a way to get revenge on Google and then take out the competition in one fell swoop.
There should be far fewer lawsuits. Apple should be suing Google as well as Samsung (due to other patent violations other than those in Android) NOT companies that choose to sell Android products. Very tacky. I say this as a shareholder (tiny tiny shareholder) and a customer.
Not childish at all!
Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.
Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.
I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.
It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.
There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.
It's not about squandering Apple's assets. It's about tens of trillions of dollars worth of business over the mid-term iOS lifecycle. Without the copying everyone is another 3-5 years behind. In the business world THAT is what you fight for. Your shortsightedness over what the IP fight is really over is quite limiting.
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
Including yourself with all the Google/Android did it first jazz over the past few months? Are you saying you are so mindless you let a website twist you how to think because you can only pick one extreme or another -- irregardless of fact?
Quite the conundrum! Either you are correct -- and you don't control your own posting; or you expose yourself as trying to extremize the website as a way to deflect attention from your own agenda.
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
It is pretty clear that Apple truly believes that their IP is being violated. So if a competitor violates your IP, your recourse is negotiations and then lawsuits. Obviously, the competitor has to start it, or there would be no violation. So your point is?
Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.
I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.
There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.
But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?
There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.
But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?
About no law, that part's true. But spoofing device IDs was illegal due to Palm's contractual agreements with the USB standards authority, USB-IF. Palm was told to stop spoofing, or stop using USB. If Palm hadn't done one or the other they would have been sued by USB-IF, Inc. rather than Apple.
I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.
But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.
Perhaps Apple is secretly mounting a suit against Google and we're just not aware of it. Neither you or I have any way to know that. All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.
Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.
Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.
Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.
Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.
So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.
I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.
But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.
All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.
What could account for this disparity?
The explanation for not suing Google is in Hiro's excellent post above (post #356!). Thanks Hiro.
I doubt is has anything to do with differences of opinion between Jobs and other Apple leadership. Perhaps a difference in level of passion, but it would be pretty FU'd for a leading American corporation to make major legal/strategic/financial decisions based solely upon the CEO's "hurt feelings". The Board and executive leadership have to be convinced there is some chance of winning, meaning they view their IP as valid and defensible, and that the lawsuits have a reasonable chance of success. Given the predictable PR blowback, probably more than a reasonable chance.
And BTW, you are wrong, what Steve said does not contradict what Apple does in this area.
My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.
Sorry to disagree, but the point I was referring to that you made is:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
Your explanation has almost nothing to do with this statement.
Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.
Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.
That is absolutely not true. Look up 'contributory infringement'. Google could be liable for billions. And the proof required to show that a given Android phone violate Apple's IP is not that different whether Apple is suing Google or HTC. The difference is tactical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM
I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.
It could be equally effective - maybe more so given Google's cash horde. The difference is tactical. If Apple goes directly after Google, they are threatening Google's core and Google could easily justify immense money to defend themselves. By choosing a handset maker first, Apple is playing 'divide and conquer'. Once Apple wins one or two cases against handset makers, it becomes almost impossible for Google to win future battles.
I suspect that's why Apple is going after Samsung first. Since Samsung has clearly violated not just Apple's patents but also Apple's trade dress, it's easy for Apple top paint Samsung as "the copyist". Once Samsung falls, Apple's case against the other vendors doesn't need to be as strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.
And, yet, judges around the world are finding Samsung to have violated Apple's IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.
Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.
Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.
Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.
So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.
Actually, that all misses the concept of contributory infringement. If Apple can show that Android violates its IP, they can easily go after Google for contributory infringement.
Comments
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html
Oh. This goes payback. Payback's a b!t##
deleted
And there's the difference between Jobs and Cook which may give investors great confidence in Apple going forward:
It may well be that Jobs might agree with you, that he'd want to spend the company's money on such personal vendettas. But Cook governs with a cooler head.
Now before y'all rush to click "Reply" so you can write "Troll!", check out how Jonathan Ive describes Jobs in post #325 above.
People are complex. Jobs was a visionary, but we all have blind spots and Jobs was no exception.
Deification of his legacy will not help Apple; Jobs himself understood this, and made it clear the company should not spend time going forward locked in arguments about "What would Steve do?", but instead trusted Cook and Ive and others to exercise their own judgment.
That trust in Cook and Ive may well be among the most sound decisions Steve ever made. It benefits the community to respect that as we see changes going forward.
I wonder if Cook is a pushover? I honestly do. That could cause the company to fall. Steve had a blessing and a curse (HE WAS EMPLOYEE #0 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!). He did what he wanted....and this was ironically his success.
I wonder if Cook is a pushover? I honestly do.
Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.
He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.
Supposedly, Cook is the one who wrangled all the most recent deals with external companies.
He's supposed to be ruthless at it. He doesn't have the name-dropping power of Steve, but that's because no one else is Steve. Cook's just good at what he does.
It's just in his pictures he seems so nice.
deleted
I also find it bothersome that Apple chooses to sue/attack the manufacturers of Android devices instead of suing Google directly. Attacking Google/Android via proxy seems childish. It seems a way to get revenge on Google and then take out the competition in one fell swoop.
There should be far fewer lawsuits. Apple should be suing Google as well as Samsung (due to other patent violations other than those in Android) NOT companies that choose to sell Android products. Very tacky. I say this as a shareholder (tiny tiny shareholder) and a customer.
Not childish at all!
Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.
Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.
I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.
deleted
It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.
There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.
It's not about squandering Apple's assets. It's about tens of trillions of dollars worth of business over the mid-term iOS lifecycle. Without the copying everyone is another 3-5 years behind. In the business world THAT is what you fight for. Your shortsightedness over what the IP fight is really over is quite limiting.
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
Including yourself with all the Google/Android did it first jazz over the past few months? Are you saying you are so mindless you let a website twist you how to think because you can only pick one extreme or another -- irregardless of fact?
Quite the conundrum! Either you are correct -- and you don't control your own posting; or you expose yourself as trying to extremize the website as a way to deflect attention from your own agenda.
The most unfortunate thing is that AI's inflammatory style has fostered a community in which "competing" is equated with "starting it".
It is pretty clear that Apple truly believes that their IP is being violated. So if a competitor violates your IP, your recourse is negotiations and then lawsuits. Obviously, the competitor has to start it, or there would be no violation. So your point is?
Here ya go.
Not enough? How about the words out of the spokeperson's mouth?
Let's see. Gizmodo. Unreliable from the start. But then, he says "probably". So he never tried it.
Still not enough? I've got plenty of sources.
I never said that all won't work. The ATT iPhone 4 cases probaly won't work, but the Verizon should.
OK, so one iPhone case manufacturer out of a thousand has cases that don't work with the new phone. You win a trivial, insignificant point.
deleted
Actually, there was some friction between Apple and Palm when the Pre came out. It just wasn't about the OS. The CEO (Rubenstein - a former Apple executive) had the bright idea to have the Pre spoof itself as an iPhone when connected to iTunes. They were able to do this because Rubenstein was in charge of the iPod division when at Apple. A bunch of updates killing the function were issued along with statements but no lawsuits that I can remember.
I think Apple never went after WebOS is because Palm has/had a ton of (non-FRAND) mobile patents.
There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.
But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?
There isn't a law against spoofing devices except for USB certification; Apple complained about it if I remembered right but couldn't sue.
But if they didn't sue because of the zero sum game of patents that Palm has, what does that show about the system as a whole again?
About no law, that part's true. But spoofing device IDs was illegal due to Palm's contractual agreements with the USB standards authority, USB-IF. Palm was told to stop spoofing, or stop using USB. If Palm hadn't done one or the other they would have been sued by USB-IF, Inc. rather than Apple.
I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.
But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.
Perhaps Apple is secretly mounting a suit against Google and we're just not aware of it. Neither you or I have any way to know that. All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.
Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.
Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.
Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.
Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.
So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.
Does Apple really share Jobs' belief?
I have no question that Jobs himself believed this wholeheartedly.
But I also observe what appears to be a difference of opinion between him and the cooler heads at Apple on this issue: Apple has not taken Schmidt or Google to court over this.
All we know is that what Steve says on this issue contradicts what Apple does.
What could account for this disparity?
The explanation for not suing Google is in Hiro's excellent post above (post #356!). Thanks Hiro.
I doubt is has anything to do with differences of opinion between Jobs and other Apple leadership. Perhaps a difference in level of passion, but it would be pretty FU'd for a leading American corporation to make major legal/strategic/financial decisions based solely upon the CEO's "hurt feelings". The Board and executive leadership have to be convinced there is some chance of winning, meaning they view their IP as valid and defensible, and that the lawsuits have a reasonable chance of success. Given the predictable PR blowback, probably more than a reasonable chance.
And BTW, you are wrong, what Steve said does not contradict what Apple does in this area.
My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.
Sorry to disagree, but the point I was referring to that you made is:Your explanation has almost nothing to do with this statement.
Not childish at all!
Unfortunately, Google started it, by competing with Apple BY PROXY themselves through all the manufacturers.
Since Google doesn't "sell" Android, it makes it hard for Apple to sue them and particularly hard to collect any money from them if successful. Also, filing with the ITC would not have worked because Android is not an import, and the ITC is the fastest way to get relief, so that is where Apple is taking action, but against the importing manufacturers. The real money associated with Android is not with the software, but with the manufacturers.
That is absolutely not true. Look up 'contributory infringement'. Google could be liable for billions. And the proof required to show that a given Android phone violate Apple's IP is not that different whether Apple is suing Google or HTC. The difference is tactical.
I have to believe that Apple would rather sue Google directly, but that their attorneys told them it wouldn't be as effective or even successful.
It could be equally effective - maybe more so given Google's cash horde. The difference is tactical. If Apple goes directly after Google, they are threatening Google's core and Google could easily justify immense money to defend themselves. By choosing a handset maker first, Apple is playing 'divide and conquer'. Once Apple wins one or two cases against handset makers, it becomes almost impossible for Google to win future battles.
I suspect that's why Apple is going after Samsung first. Since Samsung has clearly violated not just Apple's patents but also Apple's trade dress, it's easy for Apple top paint Samsung as "the copyist". Once Samsung falls, Apple's case against the other vendors doesn't need to be as strong.
My point is that there is not always a 1-to-1 correlation between belief of an infringement and actual infringement. And even if there may be, it may not always be intentional.
And, yet, judges around the world are finding Samsung to have violated Apple's IP.
Apple can't get much of anything from suing Google directly, until after the Moto acquisition is finished.
Most of the iOS IP is protectable via market incursion injunction or cash damages. Since Google isn't shipping Android devices, there is nothing to injunct against, and Apple's iOS IP isn't wide ranging enough to completely shut down all of Android preemptively. the pre-emptive part requires ridiculous situational support and in a potential Apple vs Google that's just not going to happen until Google ships a phone via an owned Moto.
Apple can sue against a shipped device in a very straightforward manner because they can attempt to prove their IP is in the device without license, and if the IP isn't part of a standard the law says they do not have to settle for $$, Apple can get an injunction against sales. Once (or if) Apple proves a critical mass of IP violations and gains successful injunctions (a number that may only be a US case or two on top of the other international cases) Apple would be able sue just about any Android device shipper with a near Apple auto-wins scenario.
Apple is currently testing the waters, and if they win they will go all in and the rest of the Android market will have to go back to the drawing board to get around the Apple IP. Google sees this coming, Apples attempt to choke off Android's air supply. That's why Google is buying so much IP now, hoping to find a magic bullet that will force Apple to settle before Apple wins any of these first critical cases.
So you see Apple doesn't have to touch Google if Apple can win the first IP case or two, because then the legal precedent will be theirs and the infringing code is in just about all the Android distributions and products. It is like Google is out on a lake in an Alumacraft 165 with a broken motor and a lightening storm approaching head on.
Actually, that all misses the concept of contributory infringement. If Apple can show that Android violates its IP, they can easily go after Google for contributory infringement.
Sorry to disagree, but the point I was referring to that you made is:Your explanation has almost nothing to do with this statement.
Wh? wh?
You copied the quote formatting and image link instead of just quoting?
AWESOME!