Netbook maker Acer accuses Apple of starting 'patent war'

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    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.



    That's certainly true in some fields such as pharmaceuticals, but its questionable how true it is of software. The bulk of the work in software lies not in the idea, but in the implementation. If I develop a piece of software I can expect a profit on it if it's successful because it will cost the same amount for my competitor to develop it - even copying me he'll still have to reproduce much of my work - especially if he wants to be compatible with my generated documents. Look around your computer at all the software you run that isn't protected by patents. Copyright is plenty.



    Quote:

    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.



    If that were true in the case of software patents then you would imagine that the pre software patent era would have been a time when software made very little progress, but in fact the opposite is true.



    Some suggested reading on the topic:



    Back in 1995 Dan Bricklin (creator of the first spreadsheet) http://www.bricklin.com/patentsandsoftware.htm



    Richard Stallman (creator of emacs and the entire open source movement)

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighti...e-patents.html
  • Reply 122 of 146
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,653member
    Many have commented on the poor quality of Acer products. Many have commented that Acer should innovate and design better products. I think this is one of the side effects of Apple maintaining such high standards for design of both the hardware and software. By doing this AND succeeding massively Apple may be forcing other companies to begin rethinking their race to the bottom in every aspect of their business. Apple are showing consumers and corporations that quality design is good. And worth paying for. The question remains, can these companies change their culture to compete directly with Apple?

    We'll see.



    Future might look good for students at design schools right about now.
  • Reply 123 of 146
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post




    Back in 1995 Dan Bricklin (creator of the first spreadsheet) http://www.bricklin.com/patentsandsoftware.htm



    Ah VisiCalc such fond memories
  • Reply 124 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    Future might look good for students at design schools right about now.



    Yeh but it sucks for us aesthetically impaired geeks
  • Reply 125 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Ah VisiCalc such fond memories



    It's amazing to think of how different the world would be if they'd gotten a patent and enforced it. It would almost be worth it just to have Lotus cease to exist and thus never create Lotus Notes.
  • Reply 126 of 146
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Yeh but it sucks for us aesthetically impaired geeks



    Well, first of all, not all of us are aesthetically impaired.



    Second, this sentiment gets to the core of what many of these patents are about. When someone like Bricklin or Stallman go on about this topic, they are really speaking about one narrow aspect of what constitutes "software", and that is the code base of the product. But the code base of a product does not wholly constitute the product, and the functionality of the product, as achieved through that code, is not its sum. A modern software product is not special because of the way some nerds coded up a bunch of classes, or because some megamind crafted the most lovely architecture ever. Although those things do contribute, modern software systems become differentiated because of the way in which that functionality is realized and presented to the end user, and that is what Apple is really defending, here. In essence, Apple is defending a method of interfacing with a human being that is unique, and that makes using one of their devices special and powerful. We can disagree that the tool of patent litigation is ill-suited for that, but that is the tool they have. A blunt instrument, perhaps - but better than no instrument.
  • Reply 127 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    In essence, Apple is defending a method of interfacing with a human being that is unique, and that makes using one of their devices special and powerful. We can disagree that the tool of patent litigation is ill-suited for that, but that is the tool they have. A blunt instrument, perhaps - but better than no instrument.



    The majority of patents that Apple is asserting do not fall into this category, in fact I don't think any of the HTC patents were design or interface - they were all fundamental software internals that Richard Stallman would recognise.



    Bricklin by the way created a completely new category of software, the spreadsheet that totally changed how people interface with computers when they wish to manipulate numbers. So your assessment of him is just completely wrong.



    Now if what you're saying is that Apple is using bad IP law to defend it's good and valuable innovation I could agree with you - but I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep bad IP law.
  • Reply 128 of 146
    robbydekrobbydek Posts: 34member
    HTC and others probably did copy, but in the same way, Samsung has already proven that the look and feel is one of the features that lures customers. Look at the war that has started between Samsung and Apple.



    Now, whether it truly is a patent war, depends on whether or not Apple settles outside of court and the actions that lead up to it. A ban of the device shows that Apple wants to rid the world of its competitors, when it should just make money off them!



    Apple seems to be better anyways, but at least it gives more choices.
  • Reply 129 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robbydek View Post


    HTC and others probably did copy, but in the same way, Samsung has already proven that the look and feel is one of the features that lures customers. Look at the war that has started between Samsung and Apple.



    Now, whether it truly is a patent war, depends on whether or not Apple settles outside of court and the actions that lead up to it. A ban of the device shows that Apple wants to rid the world of its competitors, when it should just make money off them!



    Apple seems to be better anyways, but at least it gives more choices.



    HTC and Samsung are being attacked on very different IP grounds, Apple is far more likely to license the utility patents that it believes HTC infringes than the design patents that it is asserting against samsung.
  • Reply 130 of 146
    lilganlilgan Posts: 2member
    What a bunch of losers,innovate guys or face the music.
  • Reply 131 of 146
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    now I am gonna have to buy a new iPad 2 to replace my original iPad just to do my part to help any predictions of the iPad market share shrinking from coming to pass
  • Reply 132 of 146
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,384member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gimpymw View Post


    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.



    Once again, enough of this stupid claims. Either produce proof of your lies, or stop posting the same stupid rubbish over and over again.
  • Reply 133 of 146
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    To be fair, recent litigation has every appearance to me of being a patent war. Apple (add MS too) is trying their their best to litigate Android out of existence rather than let normal market forces rule.



    Google blatantly ripped Apple off! Why should you let "market forces rule" when someone rips off your technology - technology you had costs to develop and need to recover through sales of your innovations?



    Google can afford to give Android away partially because they didn't go through the process of developing much of the fundamental technology that is in Android - starting with their Java clone that is the foundation for their OS all the way up to the UI which they blatantly ripped off from Apple.



    For all their flaws, that is why software patents are essential. There will always be asshole poachers who are content to sit on the side lines, and then pick and choose the best of what others are doing, copy it and then try to peddle it as their own without incurring the costs in developing the technology they are peddling.



    That Acer is complaint that they are the victim is flat out offensive.
  • Reply 134 of 146
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    So Apple, by infringing Nokia, Personal Audio LLC possibly S3, Kodak and more is doing something outside normal market forces?



    Not all patents are created equal - as evidenced by the various settlements and values of them.



    Quote:

    This is a more complex topic than you wish to make it.



    Wow, thanks for the blinding flash of the obvious...
  • Reply 135 of 146
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lilgan View Post


    What a bunch of losers,innovate guys or face the music.



    welcome

    nice post





    9
  • Reply 136 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Not all patents are created equal - as evidenced by the various settlements and values of them.



    The settlement value is only loosely related to the 'worth' of the patent. In fact non-practicing entities have historically gained more in settlements than practicing entities, so if you wish to argue that settlement is a proxy for 'patent value' then you must believe that trolls have more valuable IP than active market participants.



    http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=no...icing+entities



    I hesitated to point this out because it's blindingly obvious, but you didn't seem to know it.
  • Reply 137 of 146
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Apple and all the other top 50 tech company's pay each other billions in cross royalty,s.



    In fact qualcomm make's a ton this way .



    Once Apple hit it big with all their new devices > all these new law suits started happening in large numbers .

    Apple just payed Nokia 600 million < no law suit >>



    Any way Apple is warned them and is now fighting back/



    Apple has a large war chest .



    Acer is so full of it .







    9
  • Reply 138 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    Apple just payed Nokia 600 million < no law suit >>



    Not more than 600mil, in fact probably more like 450mil - there was a law suit though, they just settled before it came to a final judgement.
  • Reply 139 of 146
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Not more than 600mil, in fact probably more like 450mil - there was a law suit though, they just settled before it came to a final judgement.



    Apple settled for cheap 600 million TO NOKIA .

    They also will have to pay smaller amounts to Nokia in the future on this patent

    i will look and add a link my friend .



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ith_apple.html



    PARAGRAPH #3



    peace 9
  • Reply 140 of 146
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    I would encourage anyone interested in this to look into this weeks "This American Life" I accidentally tuned to NPR yesterday and caught it -- a 1 hour long special about technology patents and how many of them are just bullshit. They even touch on one that I missed -- in 2000, a guy got a patent for making toast.
Sign In or Register to comment.