Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents - Page 2

Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.

You should really go back and read the article again. You completely missed the point.

Apple is complaining about a very specific behaviour here, not just that Samsung is suing them over patents. Instead of just chiming in with "I don't like patents and both sides are the same" (or words to that effect), you might want to actually do some reading and research into the concepts being talked about.

Patents aren't meant to be weapons. They're being used as such, but this is not the intention. Patents are meant to protect investments. Inventions take time and money, whether it's a large corporation or an independent inventor. In either case, a patent is meant to prevent others from simply copying the invention for themselves. The F/RAND categorization exists to be attached based on the decision of an independent court if it determines that withholding that invention stifles the advancement of the technology by others, but awards the patent holder a fixed and constant revenue stream as a compromise. I don't see how this is at all punishing inventors.

Well.. isn't that the whole point of the patent system?! Giving the patent holder exclusive rights to their inventions?! Sure there will be those who will use the patents as way to differentiate their products. I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other company, including Apple and MS, have committed something to the standard body.

What does Corning and their Gorilla glass patents and trademarks have to do with this?

Why bring up their "glass slabs"?

Are they even suing anyone over them?

Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.

Corning has nothing to do with it. Also, not funny, try again.

Glass slab/Black Slab. Aka the "community design" held by the ipad.

Or, Slide to Unlock. Something with prior art, not to mention hundreds of years of "real life" application (doors) if you want to go that far back.

Because it will be more profitable to withhold them from the Frand organization as either a weapon or protection against litigation by others. All developers suffer because they can no longer benefit from the research of others.

If the frand organization can force a company to turn over their patents, then the developer suffers because he loses all other choice for his invention.

The current patent system (as in, TODAY, not traditionally) no longer rewards industry changing inventions because apparently all the big companies are too busy suing each other.

There are many alternatives. If someone didn't want to incorporate their tech to the standard body then another technology will be used and that patent will worth nothing. There many who collecting $1 to $3 from the 300M phones sold each year.

Apple is paying for the underlying fundamental technology. No one disputes that.


You don't seem to understand what the FRAND standard licensing means. It's a whole other class of patents entirely, and can not be used for defense in the same way other patents can be. You don't really care to understand that, do you?


Now you're really not making sense. AT&T and Apple negotiated a contract, and Intel chips are a product that Apple buys. They have nothing to do with patents on fundamental standards or with FRAND rules.

Ah, no. They shouldn't have to pay beyond normal f/rand licensing, which is a separate issue altogether to that of the trade dress (copying of Apple's products).

This makes it pretty clear that Apple is a mainly design firm, and Samsung and Motorola is mainly an engineering firm.

I was wondering when people were going to address this issue rather than simply throw out opinions without any logic to back up their opinion. Simply saying it's the pot calling the kettle black is not logic. It's a cop out and shows a gross lack of understanding of the types of patents involved or perhaps it's because people simply read the headline and jumped to conclusions before reading the article.

The question here is, who is the pot ... maybe all of them are.

Whatever. The whole system is fucked up. It's a bloody war out there.

Now we have the Kodak patents ...

Edit: Can you imagine if Google had won the Nortel patents then buying Motorola ... They would be unstoppable. Apple and just about everyone else dodged a bullet there.

People are going to question faulty logic regardless of who the poster is or what their posting history is. People simply wanted to know why he was in disagreement with apple and when he couldn't provide something of value it came off as though he simply didn't read the article or didn't know what he was talking about as it relates to FRAND and other standards related patents.

Why is the FRAND patent useless when you get sued because you copied someone else's design?

And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?

Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.

The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.

In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?

It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.

Sorry you may think apple started it. but if you read fosspatent blog apple states that samsung sued them them first.

Sorry apple did not start it if you read fosspatent apple states that samsung sued them first.

Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.

Its also funny how only one of them even attempts to put in some logic behind their claim. Its a classic case of I read the headline but not the article.

You just wrote nonsense. Apple has a massive arsenal of B.S., MS., and Ph.D in all Engineering Fields and theoretical physics, not to mention Computer Science.

Please either know what you talk about or just do some heavy research.

I agree that Apple spends a fair chunk in Engineering R&D but theoretical physics? Lol, I suppose the new spaceship campus doubles as a giant synchrotron too. Gotta accelerate them particles.

It's not funny, it's glorious. I have almost given up visiting this site and posting anything because of the rabid response one gets when you post anything that doesn't contain some element of "Apple are simply the only company on the planet worth worshiping and nothing they ever do is wrong or worthy of any criticism whatsoever"

Apple have tried to prevent the sale of All Galaxy related products in the US, Australia and Europe, yet they claim Samsung is being uncompetitive and using patents to try and keep them out of markets?

The absolute hypocrisy is just staggering, even for Apple.

They saw all but a minor patent get kicked out of the Dutch court and now realise their patents may not be sound at all and are worried they have started a Patent war they might not win.

Has any one else noticed the emergence of this new tactic of Apple's, coinciding with Jobs departure and Cook taking over ?

Apple have had a massive slice of the PMP market and the smartphone market, earning more in revenue from it than any other company. Not being satisfied with any of that, they then launched a Patent war to try and secure even more of the market. This strikes me as un-Jobs like. He seemed happy to dominate markets just by making better products and eco-systems, letting customers make their choices.

Cook seems to want to achieve total market dominance by depriving consumers of the choice by preventing other manufacturers from competing. A rectangle with rounded corners is just so innovative, isn't it?

Apple has gone from dominance by innovation to what now seems like an attempt at dominance by business tactics.

Slab?

So you believe Apple has patented a glass slab?

Do you know what a "slab" is?

A slab by its very definition indicates a most uniPad like THICK object.

Perhaps you need some of the illegal meds Google was recently convicted of helping the importers to supply.

Nope, you pay lawyers, they do their job.

Google must be desperate, for $12.5 billion, they could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to copycat. How sad for a once admired Google.

And Samsung, the corporation that appears to exist solely to steal IP, build a copycat of it, then crank up the PR machine and trick unwary, non-tech savvy customers out of their money, well, when you think about it, Samsung must be just as desperate as Google.

After all, Samsung is a scam company that needs the Google Android scam to perpetuate it's copycat smart phone scam because the smart phone scam brings in billions of dollars a year.

And the copycat Android scam generates billions of searches Google can sell ads around.

IMHO, it appears that the Axis of Copycats is desperate. Apple has them in the vise and is 2/3 way tightening the screw and they will say and do whatever they can to avoid being crushed.

Now you missed the context of my posts they were taken out of context. Look again at the replies those posts were made in response to..... Be fair if your going to quote me then add the original post I was replying to.

If the fundamental technology is covered by the standards, then it becomes an issue governed by licensing - not intellectual infringement, per say.

Think of it as two different leagues. Same game. Two different sets of rules.

Not necessarily. The difference is largely where you choose to play. Apple has decided not to focus their research in the areas of fundamental technology that will be controlled by a (more or less) fixed price licensing agreement.

They simply agree to pay the price for the licensing and focus instead on those areas which differentiate their product from the competition.

And let's not forget that Samsung and others ARE being paid for the technology they developed. They're getting paid by everyone who licenses it. It has become, in a manner of speaking, a commodity.

Apple, on the other hand, is taking this commodity and changing it into something that people are willing to pay a premium for. Good business model actually.

Because they're completely unrelated. That's like asking why a patent on a new wheel is useless when you get sued for copying the Mona Lisa.

Let me try to make it simple. There are certain technologies which are necessary to the function of cell phones. These include the baseband and means of communicating with the cell towers. If there is no agreement on those technologies, then the entire system becomes useless (how would Verizon deal with it if every phone wanted to communicate differently?). These essential technologies become industry standards. When a company has a patent controlling one of the technologies, they license it under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. That is, everyone who uses the technology pays the same amount. This is a benefit to the industry because they don't have to deal with 1,000 different fundamental processes.

On the other side are device-specific patents and, in particular, design patents. These involve ways of doing things that are not essential to the operation of the entire network. For example, Apple's 'swipe to unlock' patent. While every phone must have a way to unlock (or must stay powered on at all times), there are many ways of accomplishing that, so being able to swipe is NOT essential to the operation of the network. Therefore, the inventor is not required to license that technology.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about Apple's argument, nor is there any hypocrisy. Apple's position has always been "essential things that are licensed under FRAND must remain FRAND (see, for example, their suit against Nokia) and things that are not licensed under FRAND and are non-essential remain the inventor's property to do with as they will".


You mis-spelled "Funny how more and more Apple haters have found their way to AppleInsider".


No synchrotron, but their antenna lab uses some pretty advanced physics and instrumentation research. It's not a major part of Apple's R&D, but they do SOME theoretical work.

Ladies and gentlemen, my point exactly. I know the two issues are not the same, I read the article, and I understand the complaint, it just comes across a little disingenuous. I tend to agree with Apple on the complaint, but also tend to agree that it's a bit childish. Just because someone or something does something wrong doesn't mean that you go and tattle on them. Work something out between the two of you.

It's like saying my patents stand but yours should not.
It felt really good when the Dutch court mercilessly killed Apple's infamous "look and feel" claims.

deleted

deleted

If Google didn't buy MMI for the patents, they must have paid that premium for the handset business or Cable STB business -- or both or all three: patents, handset, STB.


As has been discussed in many threads, the anticipated results of the MMI purchase:

1) the patents will not protect Android or its licensees against litigation -- especially from Oracle.

2) the plan to have an autonomous handset "division" has sent a message to Android licensees to look for alternative OSes where the supplier won't also be a [possibly] unfair competitor.

3) the STBs won't provide an entré into the "TV Content" business as the Networks/CableCos will not let Moogle gain a chokehold on content distribution.

4) likely, Google cannot sell off the handset and STB divisions without including the patents.

5) If everything stays the same vis-a-vis Google, Android and Android Licensees -- it will take Google a decade to recover the cost of their investment with mobile ad revenue.


This, likely, means that Google must aggressively enter the handset business using Android or other mobile OS to recover the investment in MMI -- and it will likely take years, if successful.


It seems as if Google has rushed itself into a position, that no matter what they do -- it will make things worse

If they are smart, they will try to negotiate that $3.5 Billion fee down, and back out of the MMI deal, settle with Oracle ASAP, then try to rebuild the relationship with the Android Licensees.

The latter is the most difficult:

Trust is like virginity -- once broken, never mended!

The design is everything. You aren't giving the design enough credit. The design is what people are willing to pay for. Features alone don't mean anything if no one wants to use them. Design isn't as simple as here is a rectangle with rounded corners. Great way to dumb down the conversation. The responses you get in this case are well earned. The accusations about Tim Cook are ridiculous and unfounded. You are just talking out of your ass.

People can disagree with Apple's behavior but at least have solid logic to back it up with instead of unfounded allegations about employees of the company. Apple making the anticompetitive complaints in this instance is not hypocrisy at all. I don't agree with everything Apple does. However, this is certainly one case where I agree with them.

Samsung copied the design of the Apple Iphone flat out. It didn't even try to differentiate it's product at all. At the very least Samsung should be paying Apple something for the money they spent on R&D related to Iphone. Samsung's phone looks identical to the iPhone. If Apple had sued HP/Palm over WebOS then I could agree that Apple should loose.

These people want all the benefits of FRAND but none of the downside. Of course Samsung's suit should be thrown out of court in this instance. Samsung's FRAND should be settled as a separate matter in compliance with FRAND. Apple has a legitimate argument here. Why bother to come back here to gripe about this case? Eeek!

The only purpose to putting logic behind an argument that criticizes apple on AI is if you are bored and can't think of a better use of your time (or if you want to put it into words for your own purposes) No matter what is said, if it's critical of apple on AI, people will say it's illogical, if they acknowledge it at all.

Actually, rounded corners is patented by Apple (from what I've read on these forums) so why NOT dumb it down to that?

Design isn't what people are willing to pay for, I guarantee it. They are willing to pay for a device they can use. Maybe design on the software front is more your point. If you put iOS on the nastiest looking Android phone, and THAT was what Apple went with, they would still sell.

Because Apple's refused to pay: Nokia, Motorola, Samsung (and who knows how many others) the licensing fees for those Frand patents. That means that not only can these companies NOT use the patents defensively, but the revenue stream isn't there.

(If apple was paying fees already, the case couldn't be brought to court)