or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Apple's patent filings and subsequent attacks related to the iPhone were reportedly a part of a "deliberate decision over the last decade," stemming from its own losses in intellectual property lawsuits.

It was Apple's own defeats in such legal battles, particularly a $100 million settlement with Creative Technology over a patent for a "portable music playback device," that prompted company co-founder Steve Jobs to focus on filing patents, according to a profile published by The New York Times.

In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers.

One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."

When the first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, one bulleted feature highlighted by Jobs was simply: "Patented!" When explaining multi-touch technology to the Macworld audience, Jobs declared "And boy have we patented it," prompting laughter and applause.

Patented


In April, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook revealed he would rather settle litigation than fight in court. However, he also declared his company will defend its intellectual property.

"Apple has always stood for innovation," the company said in a statement. "To protect our inventions, we have patented many of the new technologies in these groundbreaking and category-defining products. In the rare cases when we take legal action over a patent dispute, it's only as a last resort. We think companies should dream up their own products rather than willfully copying ours, and in August a jury in California reached the same conclusion."

However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.

Monday's report is the latest in the Times' ongoing "iEconomy" series. The full series, which began in January, can be viewed here.
post #2 of 62
Quote:
"In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers."

One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."


SMART.
Edited by Quadra 610 - 10/8/12 at 5:34am
post #3 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

"In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers."
One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."
 

That highlights why the filing of a patent application by someone doesn't mean all competitors should stop work on anything similar. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."

So? That's standard practice.

It costs a few thousand dollars to file for a patent. If you have a technology that you know won't be approved, it can make sense to file for the patent. When the patent office rejects your patent on grounds of prior art, that gives you an enormous edge if someone sues you for the technology later. You pull out the USPTO decision that says it was not patentable.

Even in a much smaller company than Apple, we sometimes filed for patents that we know would be difficult or impossible to defend. It gives you leverage over the competition and adds one barrier that many competitors would not climb.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #5 of 62
post #6 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That highlights why the filing of a patent application by someone doesn't mean all competitors should stop work on anything similar. 

Nice straw man. No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.

They should, however, refrain from making slavish copies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nice straw man. No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.
They should, however, refrain from making slavish copies.

Strawman? Strawman for what?

 

As an aside didn't you yourself make a lengthy post one day about how easy it was for companies to search for patent applications, and that you yourself had done just that? You also advised that companies should avoid working on projects that other companies had already filed patent applications for IIRC. I'll go back and find the posts if need be if you want to deny saying so.

 

EDIT: I'm correct of course. I had asked:

"Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. . . The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place." 

 

 

and your quote in answer:

"Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents. I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.

In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property."

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151081/google-prepping-software-patch-to-help-samsung-dodge-galaxy-nexus-injunction/40#post_2140229


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/8/12 at 7:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 62

This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...

 

"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #9 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Strawman? Strawman for what?

 

Perhaps "strawman" was not the right word -- the phrase "rewrite history" probably better describes what he had in mind -- but I think he was probably referring to the likely intended implication of your post: that Google shouldn't have "stopped" work on Android just because Apple filed for patents. (You can deny that was your intention, but given your job and posting history, it's not a big leap of logic to understand where you are coming from.)

 

So, just so your "idea" doesn't gain any unwarranted traction, let's review: Google bought and began work on an OS project named "Android", a Blackberry knockoff with no resemblance to Android today, prior to Apple's announcement of the iPhone. After Apple's announcement of the iPhone, Google, then, started work on an entirely new project, also named Android, but bearing no more resemblance to the original "Android" project than a Blackberry did to the original iPhone in 2007 -- i.e., none.

 

The logical, and most likely intentioned, implication of your post is that, "It's all well and fine that Apple filed for these patents, but that doesn't mean Google should have stopped work on Android." The flaw in your implied argument is that it depends on a sleight of hand regarding the name "Android" where it's pretended that the "Android" of January 2007 is the direct ancestor of today's Android. Despite the fact that both have the same name, that's just not true. So, in fact, Google wouldn't have need to stop work on anything if they had continued on their previous course. What in fact happened was that Google immediately started copying iOS and the iPhone, after Apple did all the heavy lifting themselves, as quickly as they could, even though they knew Apple was patenting those technologies and would likely receive a substantial number of significant patents based on them.

 

Google simply didn't care whether the technology would be patented or not. Just like they don't care whether WebM is patent encumbered or not. They weren't going to bear the brunt of the risk anyway. They just did what they always do: steal, copy, give it away.

post #10 of 62
Yep happen with the first Powerbook, when they moved the keyboard from edge of the laptop up next to the display and provide the palm rest. Apple was going to patent this at the time but lawyers told apple there was prior artwork so do not bother. We all know what happen next, every PC company out there in a years time changed their design to match the Powerbook. Then apple when back to try an patent it and it was too late at that point.

I am glad apple is patenting everything , but Apple is not the only company doing this, Qualcomm has had the mentality since day one, you call in their building and the have patents they have been awarded hanging on all the walls.
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.

And that is what is wrong with the patent world we live in. I know they're doing what is necessary to protect themselves but that is what makes it sad. i don't have a solution, just thinking that all that money could be so much more productive elsewhere.

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Windows Tablet, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 Linux HTPC

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Windows Tablet, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 Linux HTPC

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply
post #12 of 62
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post
This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...

 

"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."

Originally Posted by MarquisMark View Post
And that is what is wrong with the patent world we live in. I know they're doing what is necessary to protect themselves but that is what makes it sad. i don't have a solution, just thinking that all that money could be so much more productive elsewhere.

 

So basically, "Innovate, don't litigate," when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #13 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Strawman? Strawman for what?

As an aside didn't you yourself make a lengthy post one day about how easy it was for companies to search for patent applications, and that you yourself had done just that? You also advised that companies should avoid working on projects that other companies had already filed patent applications for IIRC. I'll go back and find the posts if need be if you want to deny saying so.

EDIT: I'm correct of course. I had asked:
"Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. . . 
The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place." 

 

and your quote in answer:
"Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents. I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.




In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property."
]


http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151081/google-prepping-software-patch-to-help-samsung-dodge-galaxy-nexus-injunction/40#post_2140229

So you're claim is that you don't know the difference between "work on something similar" and "work on things that they KNOW violate someone else's patents"?

I'll buy that. Your posts here indicate that even simple concepts often elude you.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So you're claim is that you don't know the difference between "work on something similar" and "work on things that they KNOW violate someone else's patents"?
I'll buy that. Your posts here indicate that even simple concepts often elude you.

You were very obviously posting about patent applications in general, which speaks directly to the post you seem to take issue with. It also disproves what you said in post 5:

Quote: "No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar."

 

 

"...but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application"

 

BTW, how do you infringe on someone else's application?


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/8/12 at 9:22am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...

 

"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."

You do understand that purchasing patents means buying companies that have patents they want? Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola last year

post #16 of 62

For those that haven't read the entire article, it's absolutely worth a few minutes time to do so IMO

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 62
Quote:
When the first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, one bulleted feature highlighted by Jobs was simply: "Patented!" When explaining multi-touch technology to the Macworld audience, Jobs declared "And boy have we patented it," prompting laughter and applause.

 

One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread belief that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft.  Everyone in that audience who laughed and applauded understood what Jobs was referring to.  It is outrageous that something similar is happening again, and some of the blame goes to Jobs in my opinion.  Schmidt should not have been on the board, or should have been kicked to the curb much earlier than he was.  

post #18 of 62
Originally Posted by shadash View Post
One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread fact that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft. 

 

Fixed, but yes, agreed. It's astonishing that something didn't happen to Schmidt personally, really. A black eye, even.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.


Sad, just like how some countries manage to waste big-time money (and human lives) on wars when they are teetering with economic problems back home.

We need some real reforms.

iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
post #20 of 62
Originally Posted by spacerays View Post
We need some real reforms.

 

 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #21 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So? That's standard practice.
It costs a few thousand dollars to file for a patent. If you have a technology that you know won't be approved, it can make sense to file for the patent. When the patent office rejects your patent on grounds of prior art, that gives you an enormous edge if someone sues you for the technology later. You pull out the USPTO decision that says it was not patentable.
Even in a much smaller company than Apple, we sometimes filed for patents that we know would be difficult or impossible to defend. It gives you leverage over the competition and adds one barrier that many competitors would not climb.
Good point!
post #22 of 62

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Like I said, it wont be long when Apple's legal department has greater budget than their R&D department. lol

 

The one company that led the underground rebellion against the likes of Big Blue, is now itself the very thing that they despised.

 

Oh how thou times have changed.

 

 

 

Also, it seems like Apple's lawyers mislead the jury into believing that Samsung "copied".

 

http://news.yahoo.com/newly-released-documents-suggest-samsung-might-not-apple-141247119.html


Edited by Galbi - 10/8/12 at 10:06am

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #23 of 62
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Good description of most of your posts.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #24 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You were very obviously posting about patent applications in general, which speaks directly to the post you seem to take issue with. It also disproves what you said in post 5:

Quote: "No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar."

 

 

"...but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application"

 

BTW, how do you infringe on someone else's application?

 

Oh, it's GG being deliberately, and theatrically, obtuse, again, this time apparently to be argumentative. This time, it's not even clear what his point is other than being hypocritical (see his sig).

 

But, let's look at the points above:

 

* No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.

 

Fair enough, I'll buy that.

 

* ... make sure you're not infringing on someone else's [patent] application.

 

Is infringing on someone else's IP the same as "doing something similar"? It could be, but since "doing something similar" is a very broad characterization, it's almost certainly not the same as "infringing on someone else's [patent] application" in all, maybe not even most, cases.

 

On the other hand, if someone files a fairly strong patent application, and there seems to be no prior art, and it seems unlikley they will license it to you when granted, it would probably be wise to turn your efforts in a different direction, rather than continuing full steam ahead in the same direction as your competition. Unless of course, you think you can get away with ripping off their IP and not suffer consequences.

 

* how do you infringe on someone else's application?

 

This is where GG gets obtuse even for him. Really GG? Do you really not understand how something you pulled from a different context might seem a little off when looked at literally?

 

What we see here is GG, even when he's just engaged in attacking another person, just can't help but try to distort reality, even if it's just a little.

post #25 of 62

Dang Tallest, wheres the full list so I can check it?

BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes. The current concept-based patents are killing innovation by covering broad bases, when there are hundreds of ways of accomplishing the same things.

Economic reforms, well having safety nets, a true government bank (the Federal Reserve is a mess) should make things better.

iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Good description of most of your posts.

 

Act like a moderator please and not take sides. We need people like Jim Lehrer of PBS in this board, who dont take offense to statements.

 

The fact that you are not quoting my other statements leads me to believe that you are in agreement. :D

 

What benefit do you get by focusing the issue on the person making the statements? Why not focus on the ideas of my statements?


Edited by Galbi - 10/8/12 at 10:14am

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

 

Act like a moderator please and not take sides.

 

The fact that you are not quoting my other statements leads me to believe that you are in agreement. :D

 

I'm pretty sure his response applied to your entire post, despite his omission of an ellipsis. He may have even been referring to all of your posts.

post #28 of 62
Originally Posted by spacerays View Post
BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes.

 

I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.


Originally Posted by Galbi View Post
…not take sides.

 

Nah. Also, nah for the other part.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

I'm pretty sure his response applied to your entire post, despite his omission of an ellipsis. He may have even been referring to all of your posts.


Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #30 of 62
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.

 

Nope, and you know it. Claiming you're getting a raw deal when you're the one that always brings the sashimi doesn't really endear anyone to your plight.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #31 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.

 

I've seen many of your posts, and I've never seen any, "valid facts and figures," in any of them. Just a lot of bile.

post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

For those that haven't read the entire article, it's absolutely worth a few minutes time to do so IMO

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.  

 

The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo.  The authors also seem to argue (and I have no idea if this is true) that Vlingo's inventions were independent and actually better than Nuance's innovations.  But that is not descriptive of the Apple/Samsung litigation at all.  It is not like Samsung independently invented a better way to work a phone.  Instead Samsung clearly took Apple's ideas and shoehorned them into their skin of Android.  

 

Apple's payment of $100 million to Creative (6 years ago) is paltry compared to the payments made to Nokia for patents related to the iPhone, but interestingly nowhere are Nokia or Apple's royalty payments mentioned in this article.  

 

The authors write:  "If Apple’s claims — which include ownership of minor elements like rounded square icons and of more fundamental smartphone technologies — prevail, it will most likely force competitors to overhaul how they design phones, industry experts say."  First, why weren't these "more fundamental smartphone technologies" explained?  What are they?  How important are they?  What were phones like before these inventions?  Second, wouldn't an "overhaul" of existing phones be a good thing, forcing other companies to invent even better ways of interacting with a smartphone?  Isn't that the very definition of innovation?  

 

Apart from a direct quote from Apple's representative (which of course cannot be trusted because its Apple /s), the writers make no attempt to explain "standards-essential patents" and the abusive way Motorola, Samsung and others have tried to use them.  Nor did the writers clearly distinguish these from Apple's non-standards-essential patents.  

 

Judge Posner is mentioned several times in the article.  Perhaps he should have recused himself at the Apple/Motorola trial, because he is clearly not neutral on this subject.  

 

The most laughable quote in the whole piece is this one from someone at Google:  “Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.”  As if patent suits explains the success of the iPhone!  

 

Another hatchet job by the Times, in my opinion.  

post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.


I guess using higher level architecture, system, etc diagrams. Those are pretty abstract in terms of code implementation, but outline the working very well. Plus getting a patent on such stuff will ensure that any copycats can be caught easily if they rip it off.

iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
post #34 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.

It sounds like you're getting the idea you're in the wrong place.  This forum is called APPLEInsider.  Not Ars or CNET.  We are Apple fans here, for the most part.  You're going to get blasted for bringing your pro-Fandroid, Anti-Apple blather.  It's the Apple 'hood, don't you know?

post #35 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Judge Posner is mentioned several times in the article.  Perhaps he should have recused himself at the Apple/Motorola trial, because he is clearly not neutral on this subject.  

Yep. It's clear that Posner has taken an activist approach. He doesn't like the law, so he simply ignores it. That's not the way the judicial system is supposed to work.

You can be sure that Apple will use Posner's statements in their ongoing appeal. I'll be shocked if the appeals court doesn't reverse or remand the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

The most laughable quote in the whole piece is this one from someone at Google:  “Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.”  As if patent suits explains the success of the iPhone!  

Another hatchet job by the Times, in my opinion.  

That it is.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #36 of 62
And yet the usual suspects don't complain about Creative Technologies litigating instead of innovating.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #37 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

 

What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.  

 

The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo.

 

GG's links aren't supposed to be followed and read. You're just supposed to assume they support his points, which they never seem to. Quite strange, really.

post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 

 

Where can I read the complete list? :D

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #39 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So basically, "Innovate, don't litigate," when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I wasn't saying anything so obtuse. Just saying that if they didn't have to litigate (both defensively and offensively), all that effort and money could be used more productively (i.e. R&D). If innovative companies could focus on innovating instead of worrying about suing/being sued, isn't that a good thing? I don't have a solution... I just don't know if there is a way to truly reform patent law because there's always going to be a few bad seeds gaming the system. And that's the sad part.

Now, I did miss that the article says litigating AND purchasing. Missed the purchasing part, but still I'm sure the amount spent on litigating was a huge amount.

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Windows Tablet, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 Linux HTPC

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply

I own...

1 Android Phone, 2 iPads, 1 Windows Tablet, 1 Mac Desktop, 1 Windows Laptop, 1 Linux Server, 1 Linux HTPC

 

They all are used regularly and each have their place. Competition is good.

Reply
post #40 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Like I said, it wont be long when Apple's legal department has greater budget than their R&D department. lol

 

The one company that led the underground rebellion against the likes of Big Blue, is now itself the very thing that they despised.

 

Oh how thou times have changed.

 

 

 

Also, it seems like Apple's lawyers mislead the jury into believing that Samsung "copied".

 

http://news.yahoo.com/newly-released-documents-suggest-samsung-might-not-apple-141247119.html

 

Since the SCO trials finished, Groklaw became irrelevant, yet they continue to blindly follow an agenda of discrediting Apple.

 

btw, how's this for a stupid European software patent:-

 

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4

 

:)

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings