or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt

post #1 of 128
Thread Starter 
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, former Google CEO and current Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt talked briefly about how his company is slowly drifting away from Apple, and commented that existing litigation is likely to continue "for a while."

Although just a small portion of a larger discussion ranging from a possible antitrust lawsuit to Google's future in telecommunications, Schmidt's thoughts on Apple offered a glimpse into the two companies' souring alliance.

Speaking directly to how things have changed between Apple and Google over the past year, Schmidt alluded that the relationship ran hot and cold.

"Obviously, we would have preferred them to use our maps," the Google exec said of Apple's choice to replace the longstanding Google Maps-powered iOS app for a proprietary solution in iOS 6. "They threw YouTube off the home screen [of iOS devices]. I'm not quite sure why they did that."

In response, the internet search giant released a standalone YouTube app, which was just today updated with native iPad and iPhone 5 support, and is rumored to be working on a similar offering for its mapping service.

Schmidt Talking
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt talking to AllThingsD in October. | Source: AllThingsD


Schmidt noted that the press shoulders some of the blame for painting a picture of two warring corporations, an illustration that is apparently false. He believes both Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Larry Page must run their respective companies like "adults," and are doing so as talks continue despite ongoing legal disputes.

As for a possible patent settlement, Schmidt was cagey and wouldn't say what Google had planned in the way of upcoming litigation.

"Apple and Google are well aware of the legal strategies of each other," he said. "Part of the conversations that are going on all the time is to talk about them. It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."

Schmidt sees the active and pending suits continuing "for a while" as both Apple and Google are on relatively stable financial footing. However, he pointed out that the court struggle is more likely to have a negative impact on small start-ups, not huge established businesses.

"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
post #2 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"They threw YouTube off the home screen [of iOS devices]. I'm not quite sure why they did that."

It's just not needed anymore. When the iPhone was released it wasn't possible to play YouTube videos on a browser without the Flash plugin. That's why the YT app was a necessity. Because of Apple paving the way for more efficient and native delivery methods you can play all the videos in the browser and get a nice mobile version of YT designed for modern smartphones. If you really loved the app (I certainly didn't) that is now an option for you just a few months after iOS 6 launched.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/4/12 at 7:36pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #3 of 128
They don't sue directly so they can starve them out. It's basically like laying siege to a castle. (1) Cut off their partners and (2) for the partners into licensing agreements and/or win small battles against them so precedence is set for larger and large cases.
post #4 of 128

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

post #5 of 128

"Curious"? How about welcome, or pleasant, or intelligent, or level headed?

Come visit and chat with me about Apple: Appstorechronicle.com

Email Me: Editor@appstorechronicle.com

Reply

Come visit and chat with me about Apple: Appstorechronicle.com

Email Me: Editor@appstorechronicle.com

Reply
post #6 of 128
Quote:
"It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."

Looking from Oracle experience, Apple don't want to argue with $0 loss because Android is open source argument. Suing Android partners like Microsoft do is much more profitable.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #7 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

 It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."
 

 

An admission of guilt much?

post #8 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."

Is not that curious at all. It's a known fact that OEMs can change Android, especially the UI features. So the first thought regarding infringements is that the OEM added whatever. Not to mention that its the OEMs making the money. Go for them first and then when everyone is either licensing or avoiding said items, go for the guy in charge if he hasn't gotten a clue

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #9 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

HTC.

post #10 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post

They don't sue directly so they can starve them out. It's basically like laying siege to a castle. (1) Cut off their partners and (2) for the partners into licensing agreements and/or win small battles against them so precedence is set for larger and large cases.


Is this more armchair patent lawyer commentary? It seems like it.

post #11 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

You assume they are in this for the money rather than the principle of the matter

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #12 of 128

It's smart, not "curious". This is a war of attrition. Apple will continue to win here and there, setting precedent and making Android toxic for phone manufacturers.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 128
What is the admission of guilt? I believe that is what Eric would prefer you to assume.

It is really just a good legal strategy. It is always easier and safer to try to win small victories. If you find out you made a mistake or if you didn't know all the facts you have not boxed yourself in.

It is an admission that the legal system surrounding patents has a large element of luck involved. You will never know who is going to wind up on the jury to decide who owes whom a few billion $. That is realism, not an admission of guilt.
post #14 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

Looking from Oracle experience, Apple don't want to argue with $0 loss because Android is open source argument. Suing Android partners like Microsoft do is much more profitable.

Exactly. Google is making royalties off of the other companies who are using their android product. Striking at those companies will leave Google without any Android suppliers. I think Google should go back to their search engine. They made a really good one, but should leave it at that
post #15 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

The implication of your post, whether intended or not, is that Apple shouldn't try to protect its IP from thieves. Imagine how worse it would be if Apple hadn't protected any of its iP.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #16 of 128

Apple would seek damages from Android profit. Google does not make enough from Android to make it worthwhile.

post #17 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product?"

The same way Andy Rubin did: Steal other people's ideas and go work for a big company which makes the bulk of its revenue elsewhere so it can give the ideas away for free, while buying up other companies' IP to use for litigation. Or is he talking about people who are ethical? Those are the people being stolen from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna 
Is not that curious at all. It's a known fact that OEMs can change Android, especially the UI features. So the first thought regarding infringements is that the OEM added whatever. Not to mention that its the OEMs making the money.

Yeah that's how I see it. Cutting Android off at the source would have far reaching consequences as it would mean massive fragmentation as each vendor tried to improve the OS independently but it could still survive.

Apple's case is also stronger when they tackle a complete hardware/software implementation.

There's also no retaliation for Apple using things that showed up in Android first because the phone manufacturers didn't make the OS.

It doesn't seem like Apple wants to destroy Android either, just chop it back down to what it was born to be - a Blackberry rip-off, instead of an iOS rip-off.
post #18 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Apple and Google are well aware of the legal strategies of each other," he said. "Part of the conversations that are going on all the time is to talk about them. It's extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself."
 

 

Isn't the first part in conflict with the last part? If you're well aware of someones strategy, then why would you be curious they didn't use a different one.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, he pointed out that the court struggle is more likely to have a negative impact on small start-ups, not huge established businesses.
"There's a young [Android and Danger co-founder] Andy Rubin trying to form a new version of Danger," Schmidt explained. "How is he or she going to be able to get the patent coverage necessary to offer version one of their product? That's the real consequence of this."
 

 

Life was so much easier when you didn't have the "consequence" of getting sued for using someone else's vision, time, investment, risk, imagination, creativity, research, knowledge, problem solving, work, solution, design, technology, etc without paying for it.

 

They could always re-develop the same functionality from the ground up and see how that compares to the cost of a licensing agreement. 

 

 


Edited by Mode 5 - 12/4/12 at 8:25pm
post #19 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The same way Andy Rubin did: Steal other people's ideas and go work for a big company which makes the bulk of its revenue elsewhere so it can give the ideas away for free, while buying up other companies' IP to use for litigation. Or is he talking about people who are ethical? Those are the people being stolen from.
 

Are you referring to pre-Google Andy Rubin with Danger/Android?

post #20 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Is not that curious at all. It's a known fact that OEMs can change Android, especially the UI features. So the first thought regarding infringements is that the OEM added whatever. Not to mention that its the OEMs making the money. Go for them first and then when everyone is either licensing or avoiding said items, go for the guy in charge if he hasn't gotten a clue

 

This.

 

Let's say Apple did sue Google and won. What would they get in terms of $$$ since Google gives away Android? And let's say Apple did get an injunction barring any device running Android. How would it be enforced? If Apple tried to block Samsung devices (for example), Samsung would simply respond that their version of Android has been modified. It would be too much work to expect officials to be able to inspect Samsung devices to properly determine if they infringe. Meaning there would likely be another court case just to deal with Samsung's "version" of Android.

 

Since Apple would end up going through a court case a second time with each of the OEM's, then why not just sue the OEM's in the first place?

post #21 of 128

From a litigation POV,  it makes more sense to go after the hardware makers directly.  Google didn't make a single device at the time the lawsuits started. 

 

In courts Google would prevail because they could showed that they make no money directly from Android. 

 

Sooner or later Apple will sue if Google's Nexus devices start to hit the double digit marketshare mark.  I'm not sure how long that would take but given that Samsung continues to dominate, it's not worth suing Google yet.

post #22 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Are you referring to pre-Google Andy Rubin with Danger/Android?

 

Probably referring to Andy Rubin when he worked at Apple. Not only did he work at Apple, but he worked as a junior engineer under two senior engineers who developed a key patent Apple claims Android infringes. These two senior engineers are the ones whose names appear on the patent. Even worse, Andy Rubin worked under them at the EXACT SAME TIME this patent was being developed. Rubin didn't work there before the patent was developed or after it was finalized - he worked there while the patent was being developed.

 

Do you think this is a coincidence?

post #23 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Probably referring to Andy Rubin when he worked at Apple. Not only did he work at Apple, but he worked as a junior engineer under two senior engineers who developed a key patent Apple claims Android infringes. These two senior engineers are the ones whose names appear on the patent. Even worse, Andy Rubin worked under them at the EXACT SAME TIME this patent was being developed. Rubin didn't work there before the patent was developed or after it was finalized - he worked there while the patent was being developed.

 

Do you think this is a coincidence?


I wasn't aware he worked at Apple. I just looked it up Which patent are you referring to there? I was just reading this bio piece. Wiki suggests he was at Apple from 1989-1992, but the discussions on here usually revolve around a much later period. Most of the time when the name comes up on here, it's in reference to a later time period. Also if we're talking about something from the late 80s or early 90s, it should have recently expired.

post #24 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jingers View Post

When I switched to OSX from Windows I used to come here for information and intelligent discourse, then I started coming for laughs because some of your comments were just hilarious and now I rarely come because a lot of the comments are just downright pathetic!

I laugh at you for thinking that any intelligent discourse will happen at any tech website. They all have bias, how much is another question. Only read and respond to those that you view intelligent enough to correspond with
post #25 of 128

I like how Schmidt purposefully pretends to be stupid and obtuse, which is pretty insulting to his audience. 

 

"They threw YouTube off the home screen [of iOS devices]. I'm not quite sure why they did that."

 

Really, Schmidt? You really have no idea? You can't think of just a few reasons why they made that decision? Did you expect Apple to indefinitely invest their resources and development into an app that is a Google owned service, essentially marketing that service? Especially when the development of that app is much better handled by Google itself? 

 

No doubt he would have done the exact same thing in Apple's position, as anything else would be absolutely irrational, but he pretends to have "no idea" why it happened. Treat your audience with a bit more respect Eric, you're not stupid, and neither are they. 

post #26 of 128
"But think of the Andy Rubins!" LOL. Like Schmidt doesn't want to suck them into Google's gravity well.

"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 #27 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jingers View Post

When I switched to OSX from Windows I used to come here for information and intelligent discourse, then I started coming for laughs

 

Laughs.

 

Yes.

 

Many of us would have got them from this statement.

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #28 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

I like how Schmidt purposefully pretends to be stupid and obtuse, which is pretty insulting to his audience. 

 

 

I agree with you.  And Schmidt saying it's "curious" is really lame.  He needs to provide details as to why he thinks it's curious, or else keep his mouth shut and say nothing at all.  

post #29 of 128

First of all let me say that all of you that state that Google does not make any money from Android are wrong! Emphatically wrong!

 

Google makes gobs of $$$$$$$$ from Android. Why do you think they bought it and continue to spend $$$$$$$$ supporting it?

 

Every Android device comes with a Google search box. Every time an Android user makes a search Google gets paid. Is is as simple as that. Google uses Android to make money from search. The more Android devices, the more searches, and hence the more $$$$$$$$$$. Hello!

 

Apple could get money from the search proceeds. How much did Google get from search pre-Android, and how much do they make post-Android. The difference is what Apple could go after. Not hard to understand.

 

The people at Google are very smart. They bought Android, pay to improve it, and support it for a reason. That reason is MONEY! Cash MONEY!

 

Just ask the company who tried to use Android "without" the Google search box. Google went crazy and told them that they could not. It is "open source" yet they do not allow removal of the search box. That is because that is how Google gets paid from Android. Search = $$$$$$$

 

Just think about it and you will agree.


Edited by mac123 - 12/4/12 at 10:49pm
post #30 of 128
Litigation is simply business strategy, designed to disrupt the product development cycle and slow down the go to market product placement.
post #31 of 128
This idea that Apple is winning this patent war is crazy. Google has close to a 90% marketshare in the smartphone market and that's happened regardless of aggressive patent litigation on Apple's part over the past few years. I'm sure their lawyers having have a great Xmas feeding off Apple's large war chest but it's really all for naught. Google who sits back and watches the proxy war occur as their partners go to bat for them and nobody gains any ground. Google still makes a boat load of money on search on Apple's platform anyway. Actually I think there was a study that was shown that Apple devices are much more profitable for Google at the moment. , Unless Apple can convince their users to use Bing, Google is caught in a win, win situation.
post #32 of 128
This guy is such a bold face liar. He knows exactly why Apple removed Google Maps and went with their own mapping solution (they wouldnt bring Google Maps turn by turn directions and other features that are available on the Android version). He knows exactly why Apple removed the YouTube app from being built into another app needed to be downloaded (the contract between the two for the app had expired). He knows exactly why Apple hasnt sued Google directly (how can you get damages from a product they make no money on, like others have said look at the Oracle trial as an example).

He is such a snake, just like Google has become. Apple is no saint but it seems Google is taking pages out of Microsoft's old book and that only got Microsoft in trouble with governments around the world and it seems like Google is on the same path.
post #33 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac123 View Post

First of all let me say that all of you that state that Google does not make any money from Android are wrong! Emphatically wrong!

 

Google makes gobs of $$$$$$$$ from Android. Why do you think they bought it and continue to spend $$$$$$$$ supporting it?

 

Every Android device comes with a Google search box. 

 

Just ask the company who tried to use Android "without" the Google search box. Google went crazy and told them that they could not. It is "open source" yet they do not allow removal of the search box. That is because that is how Google gets paid from Android. Search = $$$$$$$

 

Do you realise that you just negated your own argument?

 

According to you, Google actually makes money from Google search, NOT the Android operating system.

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #34 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by koop View Post

This idea that Apple is winning this patent war is crazy. Google has close to a 90% marketshare in the smartphone market and that's happened regardless of aggressive patent litigation on Apple's part over the past few years.

 

I hear your message, and agree with you, brother!

 

I recently started up a business selling widgets.

 

I paid my customers $20 each if they would use my widgets in their business, and they have agreed to do so.

 

I have since lost $1,000,000,000, but I now have 90% of the widget market.

 

I am winning!

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #35 of 128
Re: "Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt"

Follow the money, Eric. How much money is Google making from Android? Not so much.
How much money is Samsung making from Android? $$$ billions.
Therefore Apple did sue and will continue to sue Samsung.

Re: "They threw YouTube off the home screen [of iOS devices]. I'm not quite sure why they did that."

Because you were going to spam up the YouTube experience with ads.
Leave the spamware to the Wintel crowd, Eric.

Oh wait. I forgot that 96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. OK, go ahead and spam up the
whole Google experience Eric. Sucks, but hey, it's free.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #36 of 128
I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.

In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?

They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..

This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.
post #37 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

What about the $4 billion a year Google/Motorola is demanding for standards essential patents using the extortionate threat of injunctions?

It's convenient that you and Schmidt left Apple standing up to this bullying behaviour out of your calculations.
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
post #38 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

I don't understand Google. Its ok to pay MSFT 5-15 dollar for each Android device. But when Apple wants them to stop copying iOS/or pay some royalties = no.
In Sweden we have legal right to know what a company store about it's users. Only Google refuses to release the data. Why? What are they hiding?
They refuse to delete the data. I want to be able to pay Google for its great services, but that they stop to index everything. I personally hate that people who use Gmail: If I email them, Google indexes my email. I have not given Google permission to do that!. I don't use Gmail..
This is what Google knows about you and store forever:
What you think: Your interests, desires, needs, and intentions: Google.com searches, etc.
What you read: News, commentary, and books: Google News, Book Search, DoubleClick, etc.
What you watch: YouTube, Google TV
What you write/receive: Gmail and Google Docs
Who you%u2019ve communicated with, what you talked about: Groups, Buzz, Gmail, Voice, etc.
What you believe: Politics and religion: search, News, YouTube, Groups, Gmail, Buzz, etc.
Everywhere you go on the Internet: DoubleClick ad-tracking, Chrome, search, etc.
What you plan to do or where you%u2019re going: Calendar, Maps, Streetview, Android, etc.
Where your home, work, commutes and hangouts are: Android, Maps, Street View, etc.
You and your family%u2019s voiceprints and faceprints: Voice, Picasa, translation, etc.
You and your family%u2019s medical history and health status: Search, Google Health, Gmail, etc.
Your financial worth, status, and purchases: Search, Google Checkout, etc.

@ shompa, nice list. First time I've had to contemplate the term "faceprint." In this context, it's very Brave New World-ish.
post #39 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by koop View Post

This idea that Apple is winning this patent war is crazy. Google has close to a 90% marketshare in the smartphone market and that's happened regardless of aggressive patent litigation on Apple's part over the past few years. I'm sure their lawyers having have a great Xmas feeding off Apple's large war chest but it's really all for naught. Google who sits back and watches the proxy war occur as their partners go to bat for them and nobody gains any ground. Google still makes a boat load of money on search on Apple's platform anyway. Actually I think there was a study that was shown that Apple devices are much more profitable for Google at the moment. , Unless Apple can convince their users to use Bing, Google is caught in a win, win situation.

Patents are about intellectual property rights, not marketshare. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the "innovate don't litigate" trolls.

"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 #40 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

I have yet to see any evidence of such a strategy actually benefiting Apple. The only substantial victory has come against Samsung for $1 billion, but that amount is so small compared to their revenues that it's a slap on the wrist. Patent litigation has become more of a nuisance for Apple than anything else.

 

Congratulations !!! you couldn't be more wrong... 

 

here's an article that explains in detail why you are wrong.:

 

 

Soft stance on patents would cost Apple's shareholders hundreds of billions of dollars

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt