Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
You have a weird way of making it seem like your argument is devastatingly conclusive (and even rational), when in fact, it's neither, and you are usually arguing for things that simply aren't true at all. Perhaps you were in the debating team at high school.
If it seems rational and devastating it's because it is, logic and facts have that general appearance.
Here for example, you deconstruct the oft-quoted, completely common knowledge fact that "Apple doesn't do licences." Everyone who knows Apple knows that they don't in fact "do licensing" (much), but you grab this fact here and that fact there and make it seem like they do.
Indeed I pulled a bunch of instances when they do, in order to demonstrate that they do sometimes. Shocking stuff I grant you. Debate teams aside I worry that your highschool failed to educate you on the use of facts to support arguments. Did you perhaps have a theological education? Are we supposed to argue from faith alone?
What people mean when they say "Apple doesn't do licences," is that unlike almost every other tech company out there, they don't care about getting revenue from licensing. They patent their technology for the purposes of stopping other people from using it for the most part. They want exclusive rights to everything they do and everything they use, and if they are forced to licence someone *else's* technology they typically want a world-wide exclusive licence til the end of time.
Apple are bidding on the Nortel patents. We know this because they have requested and been granted leave to do so. The most valuable of the Nortel patents are included in 4G standards and will thus have to be licensed. So Apple is bidding on a bunch of patents that it fully expects to license. Yet another inconvenient fact that you can ignore if you like.
If one said that Apple do not license their core IP then that would be true. If one said that Apple do not patent troll that would be true. However saying 'Apple don't do licensing' in the context of a patent that they will be highly likely to end up licensing - is ludicrous.
Why will Apple license this patent? Invalidation. Put simply if they don't then there is literally no end to the legal fight because single finger scrolling is so fundamental. The other risk is that they could be deemed to be attempting to establish a monopoly. If that happened they would be required to license the patent, potentially under less favourable terms than they could have achieved through a settlement.
EDIT: On rereading I'm convinced that this patent only covers 2+ finger scrolling within a window, so I guess this isn't so fundamental.
The final reason that they will license the patent is because it's better to start charging Android sooner than later. Steep licensing fees on its competitors will serve to limit their growth and leave Apple more able to grow it's share without giving up margins. A scorched earth policy would only encourage handset makers to drag the fight out as long as possible.
This has always been true. Everyone knows this and despite your devastating evidence, I think this is likely what the OP was referring to.
The 'everybody knows this argument' is known as the Argumentum ad Populum
. If you are willing to believe what 'everybody knows' in the face of evidence then you would have been wrong about an awful lot of things over the course of human history.
Go and find me a case of Apple winning a lawsuit regarding a broad software or hardware patent and refusing flat out to license it. Not a design patent, a functional patent. I've looked and I can't. Either the guy meant that Apple never license stuff in which case he was wrong, or he meant that there's no way they'll license this patent - in which case he's still wrong.
Sure, technically, they have licensed their tech before, will do it again, and also licence tech from others. None of that changes the fact that Apple "doesn't do licensing" in the sense that they are happier denying the use of their technology than they are selling the rights to use it, and that they really don't give a rat's ass about whatever funds they can derive from licensing.
Sure technically I slept with the pizza guy, will do it again, and also entertained the cable guy. None of that changes the fact that I don't do casual sex, in the sense that I'm happier saving myself for true love.
Sorry - but your argument boils down to this : 'Apple doesn't do licensing' means that they don't license the big picture stuff like iOS or OS-X and they jealously guard their trademarks.
Oh wait -
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
So while Apple don't license entire OSes the way that Google or MS do, they certainly do license patents.
It's almost like you didn't actually read the post.