Netbook maker Acer accuses Apple of starting 'patent war'

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    Isn't whether we talk about this in terms of theft basically irrelevant? The real issue is this: I as corporation A (Apple) have technologies which I have patented and I believe that those patents are valid and enforceable. I have the absolute right as the patent holder to set the terms under which you may use my invention, and I have the right to totally bar you from using it,



    There are two different discussions taking place, , the legal and the moral, the problem is that people jumble them up completely.



    The legal situation is conceptually simple - Apple have patents which may or may not turn out to be valid and may or may not turn out to be infringed. It has a right to litigate based on those patents, they may or may not win. If they win they may be granted an injunction or not (the right to limit use of the invention is not in fact absolute, there are limits based on public good considerations).



    Quote:

    at my discretion. Your right extends only to litigating to invalidate my patent - you don't get to choose to ignore it because you don't like, and that is basically what some of the people on this thread are arguing that Apple should do.



    If you're saying that Google should have sought to invalidate each Apple patent that they potentially infringed before they produced Android - then you are making a crazy statement. Is that what you're saying or am I misreading you here? Nobody ever does that. Apple certainly don't.
  • Reply 102 of 146
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    There may be reasons to believe that Google copied Apple, but the 'lack of hardware' or the 'implausible coincidence' arguments hold no water.



    The biggest reason to believe that Google copied Apple is Google's lack of prior art demonstrating that they should be the rightful holders of the patents that Apple holds.



    This is a pretty straight-forward matter. If Eric wants to argue that Apple is not the rightful holder of these patents, then Google ought to mount a suit to attempt to invalidate them. The fact that this isn't happening tells us a lot.
  • Reply 103 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    Google has to be able to prove they had prior art in order to suggest that they either developed independently or before Apple, and they apparently aren't able to produce it. That suggest to me that their claims are spurious.



    No - they only have to prove that prior art existed. And the prior art simply has to be something that implements the particular claim in the patent, it can be potentially in a completely different context - since these patents aren't restricted to smartphones, or even touch screens.
  • Reply 104 of 146
    gimpymwgimpymw Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gprovida View Post


    So my bet is Apple is more interested in how and where it competes as it's motivation for lawsuits. This is how they eventually settled with Nokia..



    I don't think this had anything to do with Apple vs. Nokia. Apple vs. Nokia was innitiated entirely by Nokia because they were greedy desperate bastard. Nokia filed suit vs. Apple because Apple refused to to pay Nokia the required patent license fees. Apple knew rightly so that they were infringing on Nokia's patents. Why the refusal to pay Nokia? Nokia wanted gouge Apple by charging them more to use their patents than any other licensee at the time. What did Apple do? They countersued using their own patent portfolio to gain some leverage over Nokia and they bided their time. During the course of the patent suits Nokia's market share, revenue, profit and innovation went into the toilet while Apple market share, revenue, profit and innovation rose to alll time heights. Stupid Nokia.
  • Reply 105 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Apple didn't start the patent war - the violators started the patent war.



    Innovate on your own. How many years did HTC push out bland Windows smartphones and Acer pimp out bland MS tablets?



    You want to be successful like Apple? Innovate! Pay attention to customers and the user experience instead of geek-oriented checklists and maybe people will be rabid fans of your products too.



    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...



    i just unboxed and setup the ASUS Transformer tablet with dock/keyboard and i have to say this is innovation and Honeycomb 3.1 is much farther removed from ios than the android phone versions (or it may be ASUS gui is very different as i am not sure who did what)

    why doesn't apple do a dock like this for the ipad? it would KILL (well, they are already killing but this would be THE option to have)
  • Reply 106 of 146
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,336member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    I think I'll let the courts decide who's right and who's wrong... whatever Steve's motives may be.



    It's quite simple. Steve's motives (and thereby Apple's) is to take back the industry that was stolen from him. When he was ousted as CEO and his company and vision tanked, he formed a vendetta to even the score and to reinvent the industry all over again. So to Steve, this is very personal.
  • Reply 106 of 146
    anakin1992anakin1992 Posts: 283member
    agreed. more volume at lower price can still get the same revenue. but i don't think acer is not capable of doing innovation, instead they chose the easier way not to be bothered doing it. only through associating with either MS or google, they could reduce the extra cost to drive their products price down. basically their mere existent fits the needs from MS or google.



    there is no way for apple to compete with them in this fashion, thus apple lost the war last time. but now might be differently. the last great PC war created so many component companies that pc/MS/google ecosystems can not sustain these new component suppliers' products anymore. unfortunately, these component companies are not tied to either MS or google and they would sell the best parts to any steady and reliable buyer. apple is a such steady and reliable and big buyer.



    so the new war is not about MS window or google android or iOS anymore, it is about the component and BoM. the only potential competitor to apple is sony, who is miserably in disarray over the past decades after losing their legendary founder.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I think the lameness of Acer's response points to a problem in the Android universe-- most of the hardware parters are market "losers" who participated in the PC race to the bottom and whose business model is predicated on razor thin margins and volume.



    As such, they're not well positioned to spend any real money on R&D, and their contribution to the mobile space is going to be limited to dropping in current parts and minor case variations. What counts for "innovation" in the Android market are things like the Asus Transformer, which simply bundles a clip-on keyboard.



    Acer cannot actually compete with Apple in any meaningful way; all they can do is hope Google keeps doing popular things with Android and try to shave a few more pennies off their selling price. Beyond that, they'll dick around with case design and put mega giga on the box every time they upgrade another commodity part. Their current bellyaching is a testament to that-- they would prefer to live in a world where they can make a comfortable living as a parts assembler operating in the markets Apple creates and we all agree to pretend touch phones and tablet designs just sort of fall out of the sky. In this, they are sadly typical of Android hardware partners.



  • Reply 108 of 146
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    If you're saying that Google should have sought to invalidate each Apple patent that they potentially infringed before they produced Android - then you are making a crazy statement. Is that what you're saying or am I misreading you here? Nobody ever does that. Apple certainly don't.



    No, I'm not saying that. I am, however, arguing that the proper response to an infringement claim is to either A) attempt to prove that it is meritless, or B) seek an agreement. Acer and Google seem to be attempting to argue their case in the court of public opinion, which is pointless.



    Also, I'm not sure of the validity of the moral argument here, and I'm not sure which side of that argument you are on. Some people here are essentially arguing that Apple ought to allow other companies to infringe their IP simply as a gesture of public goodwill. I'm not sure where you stand in that debate.
  • Reply 109 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Wow. He was just joking, but you actually DID work for Shyster (Psystar), didn't you?



    Yes I did! Company-hired bloggers for forums such as this are not uncommon. I know of several who do it as a full time job. They are a powerful way to help sway public opinions and is part of a company's budget for advertising...but really, I did not work for Shyster.



    and you know, i bet a lot of people didn't know that!
  • Reply 110 of 146
    [QUOTE=phoebetech;1906665]Yes I did! Company-hired bloggers for forums such as this are not uncommon. I know of several who do it as a full time job. They are a powerful way to help sway public opinions and is part of a company's budget for advertising...but really, I did not work for Shyster.



    and you know, i bet a lot of people didn't know that forums could be deceiving in that way.
  • Reply 111 of 146
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phoebetech View Post


    and you know, i bet a lot of people didn't know that forums could be deceiving in that way.



    Sure we did. We weed out fanboys on both sides and trolls on both sides. They're easy to spot.
  • Reply 112 of 146
    nobodyynobodyy Posts: 377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    Also, I'm not sure of the validity of the moral argument here, and I'm not sure which side of that argument you are on. Some people here are essentially arguing that Apple ought to allow other companies to infringe their IP simply as a gesture of public goodwill. I'm not sure where you stand in that debate.



    These companies can and should just pay license fees for most of the patents used. Some of (and I will agree) these patents that exist out there that Apple and other companies hold are completely pointless and should not be upheld because they are so broad; "Object-Oriented Graphic System" and "objective framework for managing on screen view elements" are two that come to mind. I mean, I use objects for managing view elements in my own written code when I design websites in PHP (fk yeah, PHP) and it could vaguely be considered infringing on the design pattern described by the patent.



    However, there are others that should be upheld, such as the specific components that go into creating multi-touch mobile devices, (a software patents) "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image", and "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display". These have merit because the same style of conductive-style touch screens were not available at significant quantities until Apple pushed the iPhone into the market AND they were the first to patent (and use) this on mobile devices (inb4 Microsoft Surface which was patented but not under a "mobile device" category making them separate). Same goes for the unlock-swipe gesture and the gestures for manipulating a screen on touch-screen devices.



    The patent system is a mess when it comes to software (and hardware in some cases), I feel like there should be another method in addition to the standard patent system (which works fine for concepts but not software) to manage software patents. Most of these problems with the patent system are obvious whenever there is software involved.
  • Reply 113 of 146
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Sure we did. We weed out fanboys on both sides and trolls on both sides. They're easy to spot.



    "Weed" being the operative word...
  • Reply 114 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    No, I'm not saying that. I am, however, arguing that the proper response to an infringement claim is to either A) attempt to prove that it is meritless, or B) seek an agreement. Acer and Google seem to be attempting to argue their case in the court of public opinion, which is pointless.



    Ok, so your issue is the PR battle? Doesn't Google have a right to make the case in public as to why the current IP system isn't serving the public interest? I'd agree that they're not doing it very well, but I think they're entitled to try though I'm not optimistic that they'll succeed.



    Quote:

    Also, I'm not sure of the validity of the moral argument here, and I'm not sure which side of that argument you are on. Some people here are essentially arguing that Apple ought to allow other companies to infringe their IP simply as a gesture of public goodwill. I'm not sure where you stand in that debate.



    I think that Apple is entitled to use the law to the fullest extent, I think that Google is entitled to do its utmost within the law to avoid paying. There's no morality in that, it's all legality.



    Morally/Socially speaking I think that software should be made un-patentable once again. Software patents do not serve the public interest, they do not promote innovation. They are a destructive anachronism.
  • Reply 115 of 146
    d-ranged-range Posts: 396member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I think the lameness of Acer's response points to a problem in the Android universe-- most of the hardware parters are market "losers" who participated in the PC race to the bottom and whose business model is predicated on razor thin margins and volume.



    As such, they're not well positioned to spend any real money on R&D, and their contribution to the mobile space is going to be limited to dropping in current parts and minor case variations. What counts for "innovation" in the Android market are things like the Asus Transformer, which simply bundles a clip-on keyboard.



    Acer cannot actually compete with Apple in any meaningful way; all they can do is hope Google keeps doing popular things with Android and try to shave a few more pennies off their selling price. Beyond that, they'll dick around with case design and put mega giga on the box every time they upgrade another commodity part. Their current bellyaching is a testament to that-- they would prefer to live in a world where they can make a comfortable living as a parts assembler operating in the markets Apple creates and we all agree to pretend touch phones and tablet designs just sort of fall out of the sky. In this, they are sadly typical of Android hardware partners.



    Great post, right on the money, like always. Really enjoying your contributions here



    The thing that surprises me most is that it's Acer of all companies that tries to put their weight behind defending Android, after the netbook market basically tanked for exactly the reasons you mentioned. At one point it seemed like everyone was selling 20 flavors of the same thing, and all of them tasted terrible. Why Acer doesn't see the irony in their support for Android is beyond me, their business model for netbooks has already almost killed them, and now they are supporting almost the smartphone analogue of netbooks: cheap, undifferentiated, uninspired phones, low margins, low brand loyalty, and no profits unless you keep pumping out more and more and more of the same.



    Instead of insisting on continuing to slap their logo on generic hardware running generic software, and whining about competitors (if you can even call Apple a competitor), Acer should decide on what it wants to be: a nameless OEM selling generic stuff, or a brand that people recognize, value and associate with desirable products. Nothing Acer has done the last decade even remotely resembles a solid business strategy, and it is starting to hurt them.



    Don't think Acer will really be missed by anyone when they go out of business though
  • Reply 116 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phoebetech View Post


    It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.



    That's the dumbest thing I've ever read--this week.



    Yes. In fact we all want to prevent these philanthropic efforts of humanitarian companies such as (Psystar, Google, HTC, Acer, etc). Even though they were only doing this for the betterment of humanity and had nothing to gain from it.
  • Reply 117 of 146
    I find it ridiculous that Acer would say Apple is not innovating. Even if I overlook the whole patent/IP issues, there still is:

    1) Apple's partnership with Intel to develop thunderbolt/lightpeak

    2) Apple designing their own chips for iPhones and iPads

    3) Apple creating their own custom battery chemistry for iPads which gives it the longest battery life of any tablet on the market

    4) Apple creating a laptop that was the thinnest available for at least two years



    Looks like innovation to me. What has Acer done?
  • Reply 118 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    The thing that surprises me most is that it's Acer of all companies that tries to put their weight behind defending Android, after the netbook market basically tanked for exactly the reasons you mentioned. At one point it seemed like everyone was selling 20 flavors of the same thing, and all of them tasted terrible. Why Acer doesn't see the irony in their support for Android is beyond me, their business model for netbooks has already almost killed them, and now they are supporting almost the smartphone analogue of netbooks: cheap, undifferentiated, uninspired phones, low margins, low brand loyalty, and no profits unless you keep pumping out more and more and more of the same.



    It's amazingly hard to make the jump from being Acer to being Sony, it's hard enough to make the jump from being Acer to being Dell. Easier for them to keep doing what they've been doing, rely on their low cost manufacturing base to churn out stuff that's cheaper than the competition and hope that nobody notices that it's also crappier.



    Suddenly along comes Apple and invents a completely new category, and hangs a sign outside it saying 'Copiers will be prosecuted'. You can't really be surprised that Acer is stumped, this isn't how the world they live in works.
  • Reply 119 of 146
    Apple started a patent war? How about Acer and the rest of the Android monkeys starting a copy war against Apple first?
  • Reply 120 of 146
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Morally/Socially speaking I think that software should be made un-patentable once again. Software patents do not serve the public interest, they do not promote innovation. They are a destructive anachronism.



    Ok - thank you for clarifying your position.



    I have to respectfully disagree. I think that patents absolutely support innovation, from two perspectives:



    1) They free companies to pour resources into R&D and development efforts that can be very costly, with a realistic expectation that they might realize a return on that investment. If every software innovation were immediately copyable by competitors, it would significantly reduce the efforts of companies to innovate in this arena, because there would be little upside in it for them.



    2) Patents serve the public interest precisely by fostering the kind of innovation that can only come out of high-dollar development and engineering efforts. To the extent that patents make these endeavors profitable, they server the public interest by fostering improvements in the state of the art.



    I understand, of course, that others will disagree and will argue the opposite, and in such cases, we'll need to agree to disagree.
Sign In or Register to comment.